epinephrine act. i am a co-spon or of this bill and urge its passage in the house this bill provides incentives for schools to stock a life-saving medicine that's critical to students and staff who experience a life-saving emergency. anaphylaxis is serious and life threatening. it can be caused by bee stings, and medications. treat ine is used to anaphylaxis. it comes in the form of an epi-pen. in nearly 30 states they're working on legislation to permit schools to keep a stock of epi pens not designated for a particular individual but available to students and staff who experience an allergic reaction that can be treated with epinephrine, h.r. 2094,

that we are considering tonight, now would encourage the remaining states to work on passing and enacting similar legislation. this will bill creates treatment programs administered by the department of health and human services with states that meet certain requirements that are in the bill. food allergies affect 9.9 million children. this legislation is especially important because 25% of individuals who are injected with an epi-pen don't know they have allergies that warrant the use of epinephrine. no student experiencing a severe allergy reooks should lose their life because there was no medicine present signed to them. the passage of this bill will

save lives of countless students across our great country who live with severe allergies. i commend the bill's author, my steny from maryland, hoyer, who has worked on this legislation for three years and for congressman phil roe for their bipartisan work. at this time, if it's appropriate, i would like to yield such time as he may consume to the democratic whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. mr. hoyer: i want to thank dr. burgess and i thank mr. butterfield for their leadership on this bill, but i want to thank my friend, dr. phil roe who has been a delight to work with. taken us a little bit of time.

we have stayed after it because as dr. burgess and judge butterfield have observed, this will save lives. this will save the lives of children who do not know that they have an allergy, which is life threatening. i'm a grandfather of an 11-year-old girl. i have been with her twice in an emergency room when she was an infant and slightly older than an infant and i want to tell my colleagues a story, about my daughter who took alexa to disney world. they were walking down the pathway, one of the walkways at disney world and my granddaughter started having an allergic reaction.

she is allergic to peanut butter and peanuts. she had none of those. this little girl was extraordinarily careful. she comes to my house and she reads the labels. she brings with her her epi-pen in the case that is always with her. as they started walking down the pathway she started to wheeze heavily and didn't know why. y daughter turned away and saw popcorn being made. popcorn being made with peanut oil. and the mere breathing in of at peanut oil air caused her to start wheezing heavily. she didn't have shock at that point in time and didn't need to

go to an emergency room at that time. but it shows how extraordinarily vulnerable people can be to these food allergies. and so i'm very pleased to stand here in support of this bill. i'm pleased to stand here as a co-sponsor of this legislation with my friend, dr. roe, from tennessee, and i want to thank him for his work and thank him as a doctor and member of congress. and as a parent. he shared my concern and we worked together. there was some difficulties to overcome, but he and i together, working with fred up ton, i want to thank them and congressman waxman and representative butterfield and dr. burgess. this will save lives. it's not a mandate, but a

suggestion, but an urging, to make sure that given the fact that we have life-saving capability, that that capability be deployed and be present. so that no child will have to die because of a reaction to one of these allergies. i thank them again, and i yield back the balance of my time. and i thank my friend for yielding. mr. butterfield: i reserve what remaining time i have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i would like to yield such time as he may consume, dr. phil roe. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, dr. burgess. this act. to support this bill will encourage states

and schools to protect school children, a potential allergic reaction that can be triggered y a food allergy or bee sting. one in 13 children have a food allergy. the bipartisan bill i introduced with congressman hire and i thank congressman hoyer for working dill geptly on this bill to bring it to the floor and would provide a preference for asthma-related grants to states that will adopt laws to permit roperly-trained school personnel to administer epinephrine. to obtain the preference, the schools would have to obtain a supply of epinephrine and make sure add administration is there to administer.

our bill builds on an existing preference system signed into law signed into 2004 to make epinephrine a reality in 49 states. an individual, adult or child, could have a severe allergic reaction even with no prior history of a food allergy. and i have seen this many times. because it can cause death in just minutes it is essential that epinephrine be readily available for treatment. schools are not required to keep epinephrine stocked in case of emergencies. the result is needless tragedies johnson who amerial lived in virginia. on january 2, 2012, she died from cardiac arrest as a result of eating a peanut. i had the opportunity to meet

her mother at a briefing that mr. hoyer and i hosted on our bill. her story is absolutely heartbreaking. as a father and grandfather, i can't imagine what she had to go through. the virginia legislature has passed what is known as her law, which required public schools in the state to keep epinephrine on hand. while 28 states have laws allowing schools to stock epinephrine, the states requiring the same remain in the minority. a set of epinephrine auto injectors cause $150 and good for a year. i'm confident the price will come down even further. the training required to use the pen is minimal. school personnel could be trained by a school nurse in a brief session. auto inject tors are safe and easy to use. it comes out when the pen is

pressed against the leg. to make sure that teachers and other adults working at the schools don't have to worry about a lawsuit for doing the right thing, our bill requires as a condition of receiving preference for asthma-related grants that the state attorney general use liability protection laws and certifies that they provide protection to the trained school personnel. i thank steny hoyer for being an outstanding partner in this process and his story with his granddaughter is compelling. this has become a bipartisan process and i would like to thank chairman upton and representative waxman. my hope is this bill gives states encouragement to ensure that what happened before doesn't happen to another child. i thank mr. butterfield and thank dr. burgess for allowing me to be here this afternoon and i encourage my colleagues to

join in supporting this bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i don't have any more speakers and i surrender the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: as a physician and parent and grand parent, i share the same fears and worried the schools may not be prepared to act quickly in an emergency. i'm pleased to support this legislation and i urge everyone to vote in favor of h.r. 2094 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2094. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek

recognition? mr. burgess: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2754. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2754, a bill to amend the hobby protection act and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: i yield such time as i may consume. h.r. 2754, the collectible coin protection act is a simple bill with a simple purpose, to equip honest merchants and collectors and the federal government with the tools to fight a new wave of

counterfeit coins and currency. in recent years, the unions government has taken extraordinary steps to make it difficult to counterfeit u.s. currency. we think about how the $20 bill and other denominations have been redesigned. as the new bills have become more difficult to counterfeit, some criminals have counterfeit touchdown rare specimens of old currency that have none of the security features. some people have gone to great lengths to create fakes, using modern-design software to make extremely close replicas and replacing the old equipment to strike the original coins. as you might have guessed, most of the counterfeits are coming from china, where else? the criminals have taken advantage of the certification system used by the collectors to

ensure authenticity and turned on its head. some services evaluate the authenticity and condition of a rare coin and put it in a special holder called a slab with a description of the coin. the slab is designed to protect the coin, but it protects the integrity of the grading. if the slab is tampered with, the grading is voided. some have realized they can counterfeit the slab and the certificate as well. see it. reluck tant to the hobby ends protection act to deal with these new problems. under existing law it is unlawful to make in the united states or to import into the united states an imtation coin or other item unless it is

plainly and permanently marked with the word copy. the federal trade commission has the authority to enforce the act and there is a provision allowing private individuals to enjoin violations or recover violations. h.r. 2574 extends the current law in three ways. it makes it unlawful to sell, manufacture the counterfeit coin that is not marked with the word copy. the bill makes it unlawful to provide substantial support or assistance to a manufacturer, importer or seller if the person providing assistance knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer or seller is engaged in any act or practice that violates the hobby protects act. third, it provides additional violations that invoke jon authorized use of trade marks. the additional remedies are the same that are usually provideded for under the trademark act.

mr. speaker, this bill has no cost to the taxpayer. it should deter some of the counterfeiting practices that are rampant in the marketplace and provide additional tools to deal with dealers who go ahead with their schemes to defraud consumers. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such ime as i may consume. i rise in sport of h.r. 2764, the collectible coin protection act. i introduced this bill with the bipartisan support of mr. henry waxman and commerce, manufacturing and trade subcommittee chairman mr. literry as well as three other colleagues because the sale of counterfeit coins is rapidly increasing across the country.

manufacturing and selling imitation counts is a little-known black market industry here in the yeats. with the invention of 3-d printers, anyone with a computer can now create a fake coin with relative ease. that for all intents and purposes appears genuine in size, color, and weight. selling these to unsuspecting collectors has become big business. by the time the collect ror -- collector realizes he has been scammed, it is too late. current law makes it illegal to manufacture or import imitation coins meant for sale unless that cone is plainly and permanently marked with the word "copy." mr. burgess made reference to that a moment ago. my bill would extend current law and make it illegal to sell an imitation coin that's not

conspicuously marked with ea word copy. my bill would also make it unlawful for an individual to provide substantial support or assistance to anyone who nufactures or imports, sells counterfeit coins in violation of the law. trademark so provide protection for unauthorized use for registered trademark an unauthorized sale of such a coin. for my constituents tissue my constituents in north carolina and others across the country deserve to have the peace of mind to know they'll receive what they are purchasing. those who sell fake products have a real and significant impact on our economy. the manufacture and sale of counterfeit imitation currency cannot be permitted to continue. i'm confident my bill will provide greater protection for

our nation's currency and for those who collect it system of i thank mr. burgess and i thank all my colleagues and i ask my colleagues to support this piece of legislation and vote aye. at this time, i'm going to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i have no additional speakers on my side, i reserve the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i ask my colleagues to work with me and get this passed and let's stop this mac market in our country. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i urge my colleagues to vote aye and i yield back. the chair: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2754? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey sec recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1300 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar umber 80, h.r. 1300, a bill to re-authorize the 1r08 tier -- volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife efuges and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. runyan, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr.

butterfield, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. runyan: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. runyan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. runyan: i rise in support of legislation that i have, h.r. 1300, which will re-authorize volunteer programs and community partnerships at national wildlife refuges from f.y. 2015 to f.y. 2017. volunteers are the backbone of our national wildlife refuge system in fact, in f.y. 2012 ry tiers contributed 1,994,246 hours of work at wildlife refuges across the country. the value of this work, estimated at $21. 9 per hour, has an overall value contribution to f.y. 2012 is

estimated to be over $34 million. with this annual authorized appropriation of just $24 million, we received valued return on investment of over 17 times. this kind of return on investment sets the example of how effectively leverage a limited government. the simple fact -- the simple matter of fact is refuges cannot remain open without the crecks of volunteers and community leaders. volunteers are currently contributing more than 20% of all refuge work, equivalent to 766 full-time employees. volunteers have also allowed visitor centers to remain open during sequestration. as a result of volunteer work, the fish and wildlife service recently stated, quote, there are no immediate plans to close volunteer and education centers for sustained periods of time because of sequestration. my home district in new jersey is home to the edwin forsyth

national wildlife refuge which benefits from one of the best community volunteer programs in the country, the friends of forsyth. i have seen firsthand the valuable contribution these volunteer make there and know that the refuge couldn't continue to operate without the cricks of these volunteers. i urge passage of h.r. 1300 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman re-- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. butterfield: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: i rise to join mr. runyan in support of h.r. 3600 a bill to authorize community partnerships for the national wildlife refuge system. the national wildlife refuge system is an incredible asset to our country. in addition to protecting habitat that is essential to the survival of many bird,

mammal and fish species, it provides recreational opportunities that translate into jobs for americans. the 45 million people who visit a wildlife refuge each year to hunt and to fish or simply watch wildlife generate $1.7 billion in sales for local economies. they support more than 34,000 jobs and contribute $185 million in much-needed tax revenue. my state of north carolina has 10 national wildlife refuges and there are 516 of them across the country. mr. speaker, h.r. 1300 would re-authorize valuable volunteer and community partnership programs that benefit the refuge system. sequestration has tightened even more the resources we have to keep the national wildlife system open and operational. it depends on volunteers and we

thank those volunteers. 56,000 of them, in fact, who contributed more than 2.15 million hours valued at almost $47 million in just 2012 alone. generations of americans would not be able to enjoy these national treasures if not for gracious volunteers. therefore, i commend my colleague and mr. runyan of new jersey for his work on this bill, i thank him for his work on the natural resources committee, i even thank him for his work on the veteran afares committee and all that he does in introducing h r. 1300 along with natural resources ranking member. i strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote yes and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. runyan: i have no more speakers and i would like to close, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north

carolina. mr. butter speeled: i have no more speakers, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. runyan: i thank the gentleman and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1300 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to house resolution 312 and rule 18, the chair the claires the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2610. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, kindly esume the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2610 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: appropriationers in department of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, had been postponed and the bell had been read through page 50, line 6. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 50, line 7. administrative provisions, federal transit administration. section 160, limitations on only fwation for the programs of -- on obligations for the programs of the federal transit administration shall not apply. section 161, funds appropriated under the federal transit

administration's discretionary program shall be directed to projects eligible. section 162, funds appropriated before october 1, 2012, that remain available, may be transferred. section 163 of the funds for the discretionary bus and bus facilities program, $88,047,709 shall be rescinded. section 164. for purposes of applying the project justification and local financial commitment criteria to a new starts project, the secretary may consider the cost of any project in which private parties are making significant financial contributions to the construction of the connected projects. section 165. none of the funds shall be used to enter into a full funding grant agreement. section 166. none of the funds may be available to advance a new fixed guideway capital project.

>> mr. speaker. mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word and enter into a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman. houston is the fourth most populous city in the country but like other cities we have struggled to have a mass transit system. 10 years ago, we had a bus ystem, wider highways were always the solution. mr. poe: we built a light rail with 36,000 riders. a majority of my constituents in the affected area of the proposed light rail that would be served support the light rail. i am concerned that section 166 of the bill that would prohibit federal funds from going

forward a part of the university line that falls in the neighboring congressional district, mr. culberson's district, number seven this language, although affecting his district primarily, indirectly affect misconstituents because it has the effect of really killing the whole project. federal funds are needed to build the university line in houston. to be clear, section 166 really doesn't save any federal money, it just sends the funds somewhere else. maybe to new york city. if we're going to spend the money, let's keep the money in texas and put texans to work. i've recently surveyed the constituents who live in the affected area in my congressional district and my office went door to door meeting with local businesses over the last few days, meeting with organizations and talking to constituents. those in the area want light rail. on facebook alone in the last light wail 0 wanted

and 00 opposed it. one said houston needs a way to connect to the main line. as a 23-year-old at least 26 community organizations support the university line and i ask unanimous consent to put into the record the 26 numerous organizations that support the light rail line that we are talking about. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. poe: i yield to the gentleman, mr. culberson. mr. culberson: we will continue to work with you and the community. i will continue to support the will of the voters, as i have supported federal funding for those rail lines and i look forward to continuing to work with you for my colleagues of the houston area to support those lines in their district that were on the ballot and

approved by voters. mr. poe: i understand the gentleman and the positions of his constituents. i respect that representation. and also, the gentleman understands it, we have a disagreement as to what constituents want in the affected area. your constituents don't want the rail. my constituents do want the rail. i hope we can work together to get something built that is in the interest of all concerned. and i yield back. mr. culberson: thank you. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for his offer to work together. i respect his position and hopefully we can work together and not block federal funds that would come to the houston area. let's work with the city of houston, the mayor's office and the residents to find a solution that we all agree on and hopefully keep this money in

texas and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. seaway : st. lawrence development corporation. authorized to make expenditures to the corporation and in accord with the law. harbor maintenance trust fund. maritime administration, maritime security program, $174 million. erations and training $143 million. ship disposal, $4 million. maritime guaranteed loan, title 11 program account, including ,655,000.of funds, $2 section 170, the administration is authorized to make necessary

repairs involving government property. section 171, none of the funds shall be used to negotiate or perform fee for service contracts for vessel disposal. operational expenses, pipeline safety fund, including transfer ,167,000. $21 hazardous material safety, $42 ,725,000 f which $1 shall remain available until september 30, 2016. pipeline safety, pipeline safety fund, oil spill liability trust fund, pipeline safety design $111,252,000. emergency preparedness grants

and emergency preparedness fund $188,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. office of inspector general, salaries and expenses, $79 million. surface transportation board, alaries and expenses $29,310,000. general provisions, department of transportation, section 180, during the current fiscal year appropriations to the department shall be available for maintenanceance. section 181, appropriations shall be available for services as authorized by five united states code 3109. section 182, none of the funds shall be available for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and presidential appointees in the department. section 183, no recipient of

funds shall disseminate personal information obtained by a state department of motor vehicles record. section 184, funds received by the administration from states, counties, other public authorities and private sources may be credited to the administration's federal aid highways account. section 185, none of the funds may be used to make a grant unless the secretary notifies the committees before my agreement total willing $500,000 or more is announced by the department. section 186, rebaits, minor fees and other funds received by the department are to be credited and allocated to the department. section 187, amounts made available that the secretary determines represent improper payments by the department to a third-party contractor, which are recovered, shall be

available to reimburse expenses incurred by the department in recovering improper payments. section 188, funds provided in or limited by this act are subject to a reprogramming action. section 189, none of the funds made available may be used by the surface transportation board to charge any filing fee for rate complaints. section 190, funds appropriated may be obligated for the costs related to assessments or reimburseable agreements. section 191, the secretary is authorized to carry out a program that establishes uniform standards for transit benefits. section 192, none of the funds may be used for the california high-speed rail program of the california high-speed rail authority. section 193, an obligated balances made available for section 137-d are rescinded.

section 194, none of the funds shall be used to take any actions with respect to construction of a high-speed rail project in california nlings jurisdiction was issued. this title may be cited as the department of transportation appropriations act 2014. title 2, department of housing and urban and development, management and administration executive offices, $12 million of which $500,000 may be made available until 2015. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 68 after the first dollar amount insert reduced by $3 million. page 68 line 19 after the dollar amount insert increase by $3 million. page 69 line 4 after the dollar

amount increase by $3 million. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. castor: my amendment moves $3 million from the executive offices of the department of housing and urban development including the deputy secretary's office to the office of field policy and management for a very good reason. the leadership at the department of housing and urban development has failed my neighbors in orida under a plan to remove the on the ground community-based personnel and transfer these to a single bureaucrat. on september 30 of this year, h.u.d. executives plan to move our professionals to other offices hundreds of miles away. yet the housing and homeless challenges in my community will remain. mr. chairman, congress was not consulted on h.u.d.'s plan and

after h.u.d.'s plan was leaked, a number of members inquired. what is h.u.d.'s plan? the deputy secretary said h.u.d. plans to remove its executives from the tampa bay area and orlando area, an area larger than 30 states. i asked h.u.d.'s deputy secretary, is this a cost saving measure? he said no. i asked him, have you done a work force analysis so the h.u.d. work force is devoted to the areas that need help? and the appropriate places at the appropriate numbers? no. h.u.d. executives have failed to provide any reasonable justification to congress regarding the closing of 16 field offices including two in florida. mr. chairman, i suggest it is not appropriate to concentrate h.u.d. personnel in offices hundreds of miles away.

h.u.d. is asking for higher travel costs and an agency that will be more disconnected from communities. today, my amendment cuts the executive office budget by 25% and moves those dollars away from washington and back to the office of field policy and management to restore some of the h.u.d. field offices that are being shuttered. my intent to directly help our homeless veterans and those on the groundworking for multi-family housing, choice neighborhood grants, neighborhood stabilization, housing counseling and more. my state and local communities cannot be served effectively under h.u.d.'s plan to stovepipe its personnel. florida has a population of 19 million people, 1.5 million veterans of which 8,000 of them are homeless. we have 57,000 people in florida that are battling homelessness foreclosure ast --

rate is still too high. california is second. nearly 9% of all florida homes with mortgages were in some stage of foreclosure. communities have been hit hard by the housing crisis and reliable and informed h.u.d. professionals in the tampa bay field office have been on the ground helping our neighbors daily. earlier this year, more than 5,000 notice of mortgage default or repossessions were sent across tampa bay. florida continues to have a high foreclosure rate and tampa is no exception. h.u.d. professionals in my community have been there to help. they have helped us weather the economic crisis and the tampa bay h.u.d. office has been critical for my neighbors and community nonprofits working to solve the problem. my amendment simply says that

bureaucrats in washington will have a little bit less to ensure that our communities including my home of tampa and orlando and other communities across the country have the professionals in the field that we need to help our neighbors, our veterans and others with housing challenges. i yield back -- before i yield back, i would like to thank ms. brown of florida, mr. grayson, mr. mcnerney and mr. costa for joining me in co-sponsoring this amendment. i arch yes vote on the castor amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: i rise in support of my colleague from florida, ms. castor's amendment and i want to thank ms. castor for working on this amendment. the housing amendment has hit

florida, california and other states, but especially including my own district. i represent some of the hardest hit areas in the united states of america, including san joaquin valley. although the housing sector has improved in recent months, there is still much work to be done. we must ensure hard-working individuals and families that have the best information possible when making important life decisions and h.u.d. field offices and officers play a critical role in this process. . . unfortunately, h.u.d. wants to close various offices throughout the cuventry, and we must focus on providing h.u.d. with the appropriate resources to adequately assist areas like the san joaquin valley that have been disproportionately affected by the housing crisis. reducing access toer is vess

not the answer. mr. speaker, we have helped countless foreclosure -- we have held countless foreclosure workshops in my district, i've seen individuals losing their homes, young men, young women, tears in their eyes, and they're getting excellent information from h.u.d. service officers. to take that resource away from these individuals is a travesty. this amendment aims to address this issue by removing 5% from h.u.d.'s executive account and moving it toward the field offices and policy management account. i know people in my district need and deserve these services, ensuring h.u.d. has the funding to keep offices soap a step in the drithe direction. -- in the right direction. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> -- mr. pastor: i want to thank the gentlelady for bringing this to our attention. other members have come to me, and their great concern is that in many cases the stake holders at the local offices would be kilo sure -- that would be facing closure have not been consuled or not had adequate input into the negative effect this is will have. i support the young laity mitigating circumstance colleague's amendment, and support the gentlelady and ask for an aye vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. do other members seek time? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 68, line 16, administrative support offices. $479 million -- >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. capito of west virginia. page 68, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $75 million. page 69, line 1, after the dollar amount, sin sert -- insert reduce by $40 million. page 69, line 3rk after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $25 million. page 69, line 4 after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $10 million. page 07, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $50 million. page 70, line 12rk after the dollar amount insert reduced by

$25 million. page 70, line 17, after the first dollar amendment, insert reduced by $100 million. page 89, line 5, after the dollar amount insert increased by $350 million. page 89, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $350 million. page 91, line 11 after the dollar amount insert reduced by 100 million. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capito: i'm pleased to offer this amendment along with mr. mckinley of west virginia and mr. barletta of pennsylvania. our amendment puts $350 million back into the community development block grant program. the cdb fwmbings' budget has been reduced by $1.3 billion from last year and these reductions, we believe, will deeply affect our local communities. with our national debt approaching $17 trillion, it is

critical that congress tighten its belt and direct limited resources to the most important priorities. i believe that funding for cdbg is a high priority. this amendment has been scored by the congressional budget office and will not increase the budget authority proposed in this bill. in fact, it will reduce the outlays for fiscal year 2014 by $109 billion. the cdbg block grant program plays a critical role for many communities trying to find funds to improve lower income and -- in underutilized areas and helps tremendously in the rural areas. in my home state of west virginia, there are still some west virginians have to drive to fill up a water tank because they don't have access to safe drinking water. the cdbg program has been critical in funning the state's drinking water and sewer projects through many areas of west virginia. the cdbg fund in west virginia

has invested $80 billion to improve access to clean water and to develop water and wastewater systems. ese projects provide safe -- provided a safe drinking water project in buffalo, west virginia, and provided clean drinking water to over 100 residents. in my hometown of charleston, west virginia this has provided much needed help for senior citizens, for road repairs, and for our homeless shelters. our local governments need this funcheding to be reinstated so they can continue to helper that community. it was difficult to fine an offset for this. the home program helped a lot of low income individuals find affordable housing over the last 0 years however, there have been grave concerns concerning oversight of the program an h.u.d. has been slow to adapt many of the recommendations proposed by auditors including a g.a.o. audit performed last february. i'm hoping h.u.d. will view the

cuts in the budget as proof that congress is serious about oversight. the cdbg program is a vital one, esen torble states like mine and those of my colleagues who introduced this amendment. i urge my leagues to support this amendment and reserve the rest of my time. the chair: the gentlelady -- mrs. capito: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from west virginia, obviously we've got a very difficult allocation and we understand the importance of the program and so with that, i would ask an aye vote on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: i join chairman latham and the gentlelady from west virginia, cdbg is a great

program. when i was county supervisor i su the great work of that, we used the money to do infrastructure development an helped communities and aloud the local -- other local officials to decide how those moneys would be used. but i have concerns about this amendment. it cuts h.u.d.'s salaries and expenses by $250 million and this level will likely mean staff layoffs, especially in the office that administers the cdbg program. it also cuts the home program by $100 million, even while it a record low level in this bill. the amendment makes these draconian cuts to other programs and the cdbg levels ould still be well below the 1975 level. robbing peter to pay paul is a

direct result of the runyan -- of the ryan budget and the inadequate 302-b allocations and for that reason i oppose the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. pardon. the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. velazquez of new york. page 68, line 19, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $10 million. page 69, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $7 million. paycheck page 69, line 3rk after the dollar amount, insert

reduced by $3 million. page 101, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert increased by $10 million. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, families that receive housing counseling and home inspections make better decisions when it comes to purchasing or refinancing a home. they understand the financial burdens, they can reason -- they understand the financial burdens they can reasonably assume and what costs they may incur as a result of home ownership, reducing the risk of foreclosures. fewer foreclosures benefit surrounding communities. prices remain stable, more families remain in place. that is why i have been relentless in urging h.u.d. to improve the educational resources available to borrowers when purchasing or refinancing a home.

currently, shud working to improve its 35 housing counselor training for potential home buyers as well as develop home inspection educational material for consumers when purchasing a home. unfortunately, the issuance of these resources has been delayed. to date, only a few of the housing counseling documents have been released for public comment, including that for the housing counseling advisory committee and certification for h.u.d. housing counseling. the legislation before us today, h.r. 2610, the transportation housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act will reduce funding to finalize these resources at the time they are most needed. many low to moderate income homeowners are still struggling to afford their homes. my amendment will provide

additional $10 million necessary to restorehousing counseling assistance funding o its f.y. 2013 level. funding from h.u.d. administrators account will be used to offset the amendment. it will not impact any of the transportation or housing programs funding amounts. the net impact is zero on the budget authority and it will reduce 2014 outlays by $4 million actually saving the government money over time. this increased funding will help h.u.d. complete its statutory obligations and start providing housing counseling information to f.h.a.-insured borrowers and other interested families. these resources are essential for education fam -- educating families about financial burdens of owning a home, the importance of conducting a home inspection prior to purchase,

and informing under water homeowners of their options to avoid foreclosure. we cannot allow these families to wait any longer for these critical home ownership information resources. i urge the house to provide -- protect families' interest when purchasing a home by voting yes on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latham: i rise in opposition to this amendment. our bill had already taken steps to reduce h.u.d.'s salary and expenses budget in the interest of fiscal responsibility. in addition to these reductions we have several amendments we just passed an amendment, that reduced that account. we also have several more amendments at the desk that further eat at the administrative expenses offset increases and higher priority

programs, again, like community development block grants. at some point, however, we cannot continue to take cut after cut into these accounts without jeopardizing h.u.d.'s ability to responsibly carry out its mission and again, mr. chairman, skilled for a no vote and oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: as described my my colleague -- by my colleague, ms. velazquez, counseling is very important to current homeowners, prospective homeowners, and wit we ensure at someone who is going into f.h.a.-backed home is able to have all the information in order to be good homeowners and obviously home inspection is very important and to those people who are still under

water, they still need the counseling and information from h.u.d., so for those reasons, mr. chairman, i rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment the question is on the amendment offer by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment by the gentlelady from new york will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. barber of arizona. page 68, line 19, after the ollar amount insert, reduce by $1,500,000. page 69, line 1, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by

$1,500,000. page 71, line 22, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $1 million. page 80, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. barber: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to request approval of an amendment that will support citizens of our great nation who desperately need and deserve our assistance. i'm talking about a nation -- our nation's homeless veterans. at a time when our country needed them, they answered the call. sacrificing for the greater good, for our greater good. my amendment lynn crease funding for housing vouchers -- amendment will increase funding for housing voachers by $1 million -- vouchers by $1 million. we owe these men and women more than just a debt of gratitude. we owe them our unflagging support, commence rat with their level of service, equal

to their sacrifice for you and for me and for all americans who enjoy the freedoms that these veterans have protected. unfortunately too many veterans still lack the necessary resources to keep a permanent roof over their heads. this i hope we all agree is completely unacceptable. the department of veterans affairs estimates that approximately 62,000 veterans remain homeless. that is 62,000 members of our armed forces who made an unwaivering commitment to stand in the breech for this nation, for freedom and democracy and the values that are the foundation of the united states of america. according to the united states' interagency council on homelessness, nearly 1/3 of chronically homeless people are veterans. the men and women who put on the uniform of our armed services took a solemn oath to do what we asked them to do and they should not go without in

their time of need. when our soldiers came home from vietnam, they were subject to despicable insults and even worse, did not receive the supports we promised them. thousands of them make up the homeless population in our country today. this was a national disgrace and we must do better for them and for the new veterans from iraq and afghanistan who are coming home every day. we must not allow them to become yet another homeless veteran. while the department of veterans affairs has a commendable goal to end veterans homelessness by 2015, it is shameful to even let one single veteran become homeless. in my home district in tucson, the city is working to ensure that veterans homelessness is eradicated permanently and i applaud and support those efforts, but more can and must be done across my district and the nation. if my amendment is adopted, it

would increase by $1 million the amount available to veterans for housing vouchers. it is offset by a reduction of $1.5 million from the h.u.d. administrative support offices. and while this amendment will not solve the issue of veteran homelessness, it is a small and important first step that we can take to show our commitment to our veterans. we cannot continue to fail these men and women who have so brafle served this nation -- bravely served this nation. it is not a democratic or a republican issue. it is an american issue. and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank you, madam chairwoman. i rise in opposition to this amendment and unfortunately this once again is a political

amendment. if you remember last year, the motion to recommit, the gentleman had that was purely political after mr. dicks from washington and i had made sure that we had every dime in the bill, to make sure that every veteran was taken care of. and now to play politics with veterans i think is extraordinarily offensive. because in this bill we fully fund the president's request, everything that h.u.d. says that we must do, every dollar is here for the veterans. and now to raise an issue like this i think is something that is not becoming to the house of representatives. we have, like i said, madam airwoman, fully funded $ 75 million for 10,000 new vouch -- $75 million for 10,000 new vouchers for our veterans. this is an intensive process to

move veterans out of homelessness. the program also provides veterans with supportive services so that they receive job training and other services, so that they can move toward a path of independence. we've heard repeatedly from h.u.d. that 10,000 new veterans vouchers is the maximum number that they can process. let me say it again. from the administration, from president obama, from the secretary, they're saying that they could not handle any more capacity than the money that we have. and again i would ask a no vote for this only political vote. this is the second year in a row that we've had this. again, i find this very, very offensive that anyone in this house believes that we are not funding this to the full extent of what is asked for and what is required for our veterans who have served this country so well. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> first of all, i want to commend chairman latham for including the $75 million in the base bill. mr. pastor: and as he said, that will deal with 10,000 eterans who are homeless and i commend him and president obama for honoring their commitment to service to the veterans. now, to speak about amendments having political motives or having political connotations, several amendments ago i think we did cdbg and i'm sure it had few political connotations. but that's the way some of these amendments come forward.

to mr. barber's amendment, do i have concerns that the offset may impede h.u.d.'s ability to carry out its mission. but i look forward to working with the gentleman to continue this important work and hopefully, as we work with the senate, we'll be able to increase the allocation for this bill and so with that i support the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. barber: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the esk. the chair: did the gentleman submit his amendment to the desk? mr. nadler: yes, i did. number 45. i have more copies if you don't have it. the chair: would the gentleman present -- for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is eserved.

the chair will advise the gentleman, we have not reached that point in the reading. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 70, line 4, program office salaries and expenses, public and indian housing, $197 million of which $2 million shall remain available until september 30, 2015. community planning and development, $99 million of which $1 million shall remain available until september 30, 2015. housing, $377 million of which $4 million shall remain available until september 30, 2015. policy development and research, $21 million of which $500,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2015. housing an equal opportunity, $71 million of which $1 million shall remain available until

september 30, 2015. office of healthy homes and lead hazard control, $7 million of which $500,000 shall remain vailable until september 30, 2015. public and indian housing, tenant-based rental assistance, $14 million -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i now have the amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report -- for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa -- mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the amendment -- on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nadler of new york. page 71, line 22, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $1 billion. page 72, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $1 billion. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, madam

chairperson. much of the debate today on this bill has focused on tough choices. accepting cuts to one program to make sure another program stays afloat. but the reality is that these so-called tough choices are nothing compared to the choices this bill would force on hundreds of thousands of low-income families, whether to buy food for their children or to fill their necessary prescriptions or to pay their rent. today the housing choice voucher program commonly known as section 8, ensures that many fewer families have to make providing s by rental assistance to 2.2 million households with incomes well below the poverty line. half of these households are headed by seniors or people with disabilities and the rest are typically families with children. study after study by h.u.d., g.a.o. and independent researchers have demonstrated that the section 8 voucher program is a cost-effective means of providing very low income families secure housing and preventing homelessness.

typically congress has provided state and local housing agencies the funds necessary to renew every housing voucher used in the previous fiscal year, thereby ensuring the families have stable housing, kids stay in school and parents stay in the work force. this year, however, for only the third time in the program's 40-year history, this bill would fail to provide sufficient or even close to sufficient funding to renew all existing housing vouchers. because of sequestration, neither -- nearly 100,000 fewer families and maybe as many as 150,000 fewer families, will receive housing assistance this year. i have already heard from housing agencies across new york state who are turning away families on waiting lists and pulling back issued vouchers for families who have not yet signed a lease agreement. if this bill becomes law as written, thousands of low-income families will lose their existing vouchers, will be evicted from their homes and will end up living on the streets.

despite the risk to these families, the bill before us today provides only $17 billion for housing choice voucher renewals. locking in sequestration cuts and cutting off 100,000 families from housing assistance. to protect these families, i am offering this amendment to increase funding for section 8 voucher renewals by $1 billion. these additional funds will ensure that housing agencies can renew existing eligible vouchers this year and that no additional families will have to face the choice between putting food on the table and paying their rent, between filling their prescriptions and living on the street. i say no additional families will have to face this choice because the current allocation of section 8 is far too meager and there are hundreds of thousands of families on the waiting list. but at least with this amendment no additional families will be thrown out on the street because we'll renew existing vouchers. under the bill as written, upwards of 100,000 or so

families will not have their vouchers renewed and will be forced to be evicted. this amendment will ensure not additional section 8 vouchers but simply that existing vouchers will be maintained for people who are living on section 8 vouchers now. madam chairperson, our first objective must be to prevent further hardship to the poorest among us and to prevent evictions of people currently receiving section 8 vouchers. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, i thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. . the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. latham: the amendment -- an to increase increase in budget authority. the amendment is not in order

under section 3-d-3, which states and i quote, it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill indianapolis considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21, end quote. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority of the bill in violation of this section. this amendment would increase net budget authority by $1 billion and i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order? the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: we can agree the amendment is necessary. e are talking about evicting 250,000 families. without this amendment, you will see a spike in homelessness and

spike in medical costs and spike in hungry kids. i understand the chairman's point of order and the rules demand an offset for any increases in the bill. when funding levels are restrictive across the board and when the rules require a majority in the house cannot increase the total funds allocated by the appropriations committee to this bill, it is possible to remedy such -- the chair: the gentleman will confine his remarks to the point of order. mr. nadler: when the rules require that a majority in the house cannot increase the total funds, it is impossible to remedy such a drastic cut without hurting other people in need. i hope we can provide these funds so hundreds of thousands are not put out on the street. i hope we will recognize the senate bill is less brutal than the bill before us. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will rule. the gentleman from iowa makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york violates le 3-d-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-d-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bending pending bill. as asserted by the gentleman from iowa, the amendment proposes the net increase in the bill. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 81, line 15, housing certificate fund includes recisions unobligated balances recaptures funds may be used for renewal under section 8

. public housing capital fund, $1, available. to remain $4lic housing operating fund billion. choice neighborhoods initiative, $120 million is rescinded. family self-sufficiency, $60 million. native american housing block grant, $600 million to remain available until september 0, 2018. indian housing loan guarantee fund program account, $6 million. community planning and development, housing opportunities for persons with aids, $303 million to remain available until september 30, 015.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nadler of new york, page 88, 229 million.sert $ mr. latham: point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order reserved. the clerk: page 110 line 12 after the dollar amount insert reduced by $229 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: since 1992, the housing opportunities for people with aids has provided a vital housing safety net for people battling hiv-aids.

more than 145,000 currently lack stable housing and 500,000 will need housing assistance during the course of their illness. research consistently shows that lack of stable housing is a major barrier for people living with aids and puts them at significant risk for premature death from poor nutrition and lack of medical care. this provides secure housing to one of the most effective housing and only one that addresses the intersection of housing and health. within one year, 96% of the participants achieved disease stabilization and reduced virblee loads. becausing housing stability plays a key role, it contributes to better community health outcomes. for every $1, they spent $335 leveraged from other state and

federal programs and every $1 million provides housing and support. it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support since its first authorization more than 20 years ago. despite the proven track record in improving health and housing outcomes for communities, this year's bill would cut $29 million. the committee's recommendation of $303 million brings the allocation back to f.y. 2008 funding levels despite there are more individuals who are affected with hiv-aids than in 2008. i recognize that 29 million may sound small by budgeting standards but for the individuals and families and access to support services, these cuts are anything but small. if this funding level becomes law, families and individuals

will lose the benefits that go with it. for those families, this cut is a matter of life and death. for that reason, i'm offering this amendment to restore the $29 million cut and return to the same funding level it has received for the last two fiscal years. this amendment would ensure those ,000 families and individuals who rely on this will not find themselves back on the street with no access to life-saving medical treatment. to protect the 5,000 households, i would have to cut $29 from another account. if the funding levels included in this bill, any offset would undermine h.u.d.'s ability to provide services to families every day. i ask my colleague from iowa if he would yield for a purpose of a colloquy. mr. latham: i yield. mr. nadler: they provide services to thousands of

families and individuals impacted by hiv-aids. will you work in conference to reach a working funding level so families do not lose access to ensure that families and individuals currently served do not lose access? mr. latham: i will be more than happy to work with the gentleman on this issue as we move through the process. mr. nadler: thank you, madam. i appreciate the chairman to work and find the funding levels to maintain this life-saving program and i look forward to those efforts and ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. mr. nadler: i yield back. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 9 line 1, community development fund,

$1,696,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. empowerment zones, enterprise communities, renewable communities, unobligated balances from funds from the department are rescinded. community development loan guarantees program account including recision of funds $500 million. home investment partnerships program, $700 million to remain available until september 30, 2016. self-help and assisted home ownership opportunity program, $30 million to remain available until september 30, 2016. omeless assistance grants, $2, 088,000,000 to remain available -- the chair: the clerk will success pend. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 94, line 8, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $55 million. page 94, line 15 after the dollar amount insert reduced by $55 million. page 150, after the dollar amount insert increased by $55 million. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: this amendment would remove the $55 million increase and only the increase from the homeless assistance grant program and transfer that same amount into the spending reduction account. i understand that times are tough nationwide. they are tough for families. they are tough for businesses and everyone has to cut back. we have to live within our means, but the fact remains. we are broke as a country. our federal government is in a

massive, massive debt. according to the report, the $55 million increase proposed for this program would be used to increase funding for continuing care projects and emergency solutions grants. madam chairwoman, these are worthy programs. they help a lot of people who are transingsing out of homelessness. but i'm not asking that we cut their funding, not at all. i'm asking that we hold the line. fund what we have been funding and put the rest that this large increase towards fixing our nation's debt crisis. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. latham: i thank the chairwoman. i must rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i think everyone needs to understand that we already cut $7.7 billion from what was provided in 2013 and this is underly 4 -- $4.4 billion the current rate of sequestration. we are $4.4 billion less than that already. we carefully prioritize programs to preserve housing options for families that are already counting on hud for 2014. the funding level requires commitments by h.u.d. to serve the homeless. with less funding, whomless shelters will operate at lower capacity or they would even

close, and many of them would close, putting people that currently help at risk. and for those reasons, i urge a no on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i listened to the gentleman from georgia that talks about the fiscal crisis that this country is broke. this country is not broke. this country is the wealthiest country in the world but we are breaking ourselves and we are breaking ourselves by cutting too much. when president obama took office , this country had a deficit in the first fiscal year of $1.6 trillion. that was the last bush budget. he was living under the former budget.

$1.6 trillion budget deficit and we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. the president and the democratic congress decided that to reduce the deficit and to reduce unemployment, we had to spend some money to stimulate the economy. we had to put money into infrastructure, into jobs, and we did it. congress passed it. didn't do it enough. but within a year, we were imagining 250,000 jobs instead of losing 800,000 jobs. we turned the economy around by increasing one million jobs a month. the deficit has been falling. it has been reduced by 60% since the 2009 fiscal year. we have had the last r largest deficit since the demobilization of world war ii and frankly it's going too fast.

any economist will tell you the too rap i had reduction is hindering the economy and hurting jobs. we have done what we have to do on the deficit for now. we have to do more in the long-term. for now it's still -- long term. now for it's still dropping like a rock. now we need to pivot and create jobs. even if that means spending money, but certainly not cutting so much more. when we create jobs, that creates tax revenues, it reduces expenditures on things like unemployment and food stamps and reduces the deficit. and if you want to see exactly what happens, it's rare in life that you get a controlled experiment, the economies in the united states and europe from 2007 to 2009.

in 2009 they started going up slowly. and they kept going up until -- crashed from 2007 to 2009. in 2009 they started going up slowly. and they kept going up until unemployment went way up. why? because in europe in 2010 they did what the american voters wisely refused to do. they elected conservative governments which cut spending much more, which endorsed the austerity policies and what do they get? higher unemployment and higher deficits. so when i hear this rhetoric, it's just backwards. we've done enough on the deficit for now. we have more to do later but for now we've got to create jobs that. will reduce the deficit. by increasing employment, by increasing tax revenues from people who are employed, and by decreasing expenditures that go up when there's unemployment, namely food stamps and unemployment insurance. so i just had to say that this rhetoric is just wrong. our policies that we keep hearing what from that side of the aisle are driving -- hearing from that side of the

aisle are diving us more and more into debt -- driving us more and more into debt and more and more into unemployment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. this is one of the few accounts in the bill that reached an increase yet it is still nearly $3 million below the president's request in actual need. mr. pastor: as it is, h.u.d. and homeless providers are skeptical that the amount provided in the bill is sufficient to provide the same level of services that we provided last year. reducing this account could further jeopardize our nation's ability to provide housing for the homelessness. i oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

he ayes have it. mr. latham: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 96, line 1, housing programs project-based rental assistance including transfer of funds, $9,050, 672,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i have an amendment at the desk, number 16. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. latham of iowa. page 96, line 9. mr. latham: i'd ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank you, madam chairwoman. this is purely a technical amendment clarifying that the funds available for the project-based rental assistance account, it was our intention to provide the same amount for the rental contracts in f.y. 2014 as was provided in f.y. 2013. however, because of a clerical error, those carried forward in the c.b.o. scoring, we need this amendment to keep our bill within the 302-b allocation. this amendment does not change the committee's intention of level funding the project-based rental contracts. i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: the chairman has cleared this amendment with our

side and it makes technical corrections to the section of the bill. we have no objection to this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 99, line 20, housing -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas seek recognition? ms. jenkins: i move to strike the last word so i can enter into a colloquy with the chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam chairwoman. i would like to thank chairman latham for his work in crafting this appropriation bill, to fund our federal transportation and housing programs. this already difficult task was

made more difficult because of the houses -- house's'd adhereance to the sequestration -- house's adhereance to the sequestration cuts. i'd also like to rise in support of a provision to strengthen the safety net for our veterans in need by making some changes to the h.u.d. veterans affairs part of the housing or h.u.d. bash program. it's an example of a program worthy of federal funding. it helps our homeless veterans who served and defended our nation, to obtain viable housing assistance. i believe that we can all agree that supporting our veterans, particularly our homeless veterans, is a worthy and worthwhile initiative. veterans and their families sacrificed tremendously to fight to preserve the freedoms you and i enjoy. after discussing the program with communities in kansas, i believe there are several changes that can be made in order to improve delivery of the program from local housing authorities to veterans. the changes would direct that

the department of housing and urban development track h.u.d. bash vouchers after they've been awarded to public housing agencies, to ensure these funds are able to be fully utilized to help homeless veterans. this will aid housing agencies in differentiating bash vouchers from other section 9 vouchers in the same pool. the suggested changes would also require the department of housing and urban development to work with public agencies to adopt a simple process for reporting hud bash vouchers from one community to another. based on need by a community's homeless veterans -- veterans. stream lining this process would give flexibilities to our communities to ensure that vash vouchers are utilized by as many qualified veterans as possible. it would implement a guidance recognizing the delay that public housing authorities sometimes face in distributing a h.u.d. vash voucher while a

veteran is in drug or alcohol rehabilitation program. this will continue to allow housing agencies to reserve h.u.d. vash voucher for these homeless veterans without it affecting their administrative performance in the eyes of the department and the housing and urban development. mr. latham: would the gentlewoman yield? ms. jenkins: absolutely. mr. latham: i want to thank the gentlelady for her concern about housing for our nation's most vulnerable veterans. i agree with her that we should do everything in our power to ensure that the h.u.d. vash ogram works and serves homeless veterans in the most efficient manner possible. i look forward to working with the gentlelady on her concerns and would encourage the authorizers to look at this issue as they consider reforms across housing programs. and i would yield back the balance of my time. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, again i would like to thank the chairman for his commitment to

our nation's veterans. i believe that he and i recognize that just as it is critical to support our troops in the midst of combat, we a must also ensure our -- we must also ensure our veterans receive the highest quality of care and service upon their return home. i want to thank him again and i would yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 99, line 20, housing for persons with disabilities. $126 million to remain available until september 30, 2017. housing counseling assistance, $35 million. other assisted housing programs, rental housing assistance, $21 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 102, line 9, after the

dollar amount insert, reduced by $5 million. page 150, line 8, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $5 million. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment would simply reduce the $19.7 million increase proposed for the rental housing assistance program under h.u.d. by $5 million. putting this amount in the spending reduction account. as before, this would not be a cut to this program. it wouldn't even bring funding back to the 2013 levels. like many amendments that i've offered today would have done. instead, it would allow for a $14.7 million increase to this program instead of the $19.7 million increase. i'm not arguing the merits of this program, madam chairman. but as i've said before, and

i'll say it again, this country is broke. i commend the subcommittee and the chairman, my friend, mr. latham, for making some tough choices in this bill. and he's done a great job in doing so. i applaud his efforts. but if we want to solve our current fiscal crisis, we must continue to make very careful decisions. this is a small reduction and it will just help in the process of getting our government living within its means. i urge support of my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairwoman and i rise in opposition to the gentleman's

amendment. the gentleman said there is a big difference as far as an increase in funding in this account from last year. and the fact of the matter is, what was actually spent was not increased and will not be increased this year. we recaptured a great deal of money from accounts previously to fund our bill last year and so the funding level is actually the same as what it was last year. the bill funds a rental housing assistance at $21 million which is the amount with the recapture from last year that was spent and this amount is necessary to fund 18,000 existing long-term project-based rental assistance contracts. this will ensure that these units remain available for low-income families. the bill funding levels are not arbitrary, madam chairwoman. we have scrubbed these accounts, we've held hearings on them and made recommendations on what must be

funded and again there is not -- although it appears a sizable increase, in fact it is not and because of the recapture we had from last year . with that, madam chairwoman, i would urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this account renews long-term housing assistance contracts and the number varies from year to year. the amount needed to renew these contracts depends on how many agreements h.u.d. entered into years ago, not the number we renewed last year. reducing the funding in this account will threaten the viability of these units if the funding is not preserved. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. he clerk will read. the clerk: page 102 line 19, ,500,000 is ent $3 resigneded. federal housing administration, mutual mortgage insurance program account, $400 billion to remain available until september 30, 2015. general and special risk program account, $30 billion. government national mortgage association guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan and loan guarantee program

account $500 billion to remain available until september 30, 2015. policy development and research, research and technology, $21 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. fair housing and equal opportunity, fair housing tivities, -- >> madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. green: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. al green of texas. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 108 insert $12 million. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. green: i thank the ranking

member and i thank the chair. i would like to, if i may, compliment you for what you did with the h.u.d. vouchers $75 which is what was requested. i did join in that request serving on financial services and we share some jurisdiction with reference to the vouchers. i'm appreciative, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member for what was done and i respect anyone who wants to increase the amount that we accord our veterans. they have gone to distant places and many times when they return, they don't return home to circumstances that we enjoy. and i'm eager to do all that i can to have a place to call home when they return. with reference to this amendment, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member, this amendment deals with the fair housing initiative program and the fair housing assistance program. the fair housing assistance

program was started in 1968. fair housing initiative program in 1987. they have enjoyed bipartisan support here in congress. and the purpose of these two programs happens to be that of elimination of discrimination. it does not know the boundaries that many of us assume that it is limited to. we find right now that a good many of our persons who have gone to war and returning home have been injured. they don't return the way they left, a good many of them. and the truth be told, the greatest number of complaints that we have in this area of discrimination is -- are related to persons who have disabilities. evidence shows us that we have 27,092 complaints in 2007.

1,427 complaints have increased d disability, with 47.1 to 55.6% going against persons who have disabilities. this piece of legislation seeks to make sure that all persons, this would include our veterans who may have disabilities have a place to call home and they are not discriminated against. i know discrimination is a word we don't like to use. for making our point we have to mention it because there are people who are suffering from it. i would hope that we could restore the amount that was in the original bill from the senate. this is the fair housing initiative program. to $44.1 duces it

million which is an increase. the bill reduces the fair housing assistance program and amendment restores it. making a total of $12.5 million increase. it is my hope that we can find a that accord these losses they are suffering because the losses go beyond just the numbers. they impact people and a good many of these people are our veterans. with this, i would ask that the ranking member, if he would, engage me in a colloquy for just a moment. mr. ranking member. excuse me, i yield to the chair. mr. chairman, my assumption is that you will have a point of order on this piece of legislation, the amendment, and

i understand why. but i want to make sure that i emphasize the need to protect all persons and i wanted to focus on our veterans tonight. and my hope is as we move forward, you and i and the ranking member can work together so we can make sure that eterans are not the victims of discrimination. mr. latham: if the gentleman would yield. i just would thank the gentleman concern for sincere these folks that need help. and i would pledge if possible, if we can find ways under our allocation. you understand we have a very difficult situation, so i would have to incease cyst on the point of order, but i appreciate the gentleman's efforts and look forward to working with him. mr. green: green with that, mr. chairman, i would withdraw and

find that common ground and look forward to working with the ranking member who is a dear friend and did whatever he has done to help our veterans and i thank you for the time. and i would yield back. the chair: without objection. the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida, after the dollar amount insert increase by $150,000. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. grayson: this is an amendment that relates to the fair housing programs and specifically the part of the program regarding the limited

english proficiency initiative. this is a small program that is capped in the bill presently at $300,000. the president had asked this be increased to $500,000. we propose an amendment that would increase it to $450,000, still less than what the president offered but no where near what a program like this justifies. we aren't taking away from any program. we are lifting the cap on this particular program to allow the purpose of this program to be carried out. this initiative is vital to ensuring that individuals who are not pro efficient in english are aware of their rights and understand the term of leases and other housing-related cuments and in addition, the h.u.d.-assisted providers and h.u.d. regulations to ensure that their housing programs and

activities are fully accessible to all, regardless of national origin or english proficiency. it saves time as it helps hud tom communicate with and serve the needs of the people who are fluent in n -- english. they are trying to reach out to the hispanic community and make their party more appealing. we have to recognize there are over 40 million americans who do not speak english. this is a tiny program that's meant to allow for people who do not have english proficiency to have some of the same benefits and benefit from the same programs as those who do. it would be a small and minor concession on the part of the folks on the other side of the aisle to give a nod to the hispanic community to show they

have concern for equal protection under the law whether they are english-speaking or spanish-speaking. since congress initiated this program in fiscal year 2008, the hudram is translating vital documents, like -- vital h.u.d. documents, information how to become a first-time homeowner and avoid foreclosure and disaster preparedness. this will give oral interpretation and services at h.u.d. events and persons seeking access by telephone, acquisition of technology that conducts oral translation, marking services and public education and availability of and the right to obtain information regarding

h.u.d.-funded services. given the tiny amount of money, this program has been effective. in the last year which we have statistics, almost 30,000 people benefited from a program that cost the federal government only $300,000. this program has been incredibly cost effective. it is very much needed by hispanics throughout america and other minorities who do not have english as their first language. i ask my friends across the aisle to consider the value of this program, the hispanic community and everyone else in america. i thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to this amendment. this account that he is faking the money from is already stretched extremely thin. and his amendment seeks to take funds away from the

investigations and ajudication for fair housing claims. so exact people that he's talking about being concerned about, he is going to take away enforcement for fair housing. i don't understand the tradeoff. i think the fair housing is extraordinarily important. and we have $300,000 in this account already. and to rob an account that enforces the law to make housing available so there is no discrimination whether you are hispanic, you don't want to have cases where people, because of race are not allowed in these -- in the housing. so i think it's ill-thought out, something certainly when you are taking away enforcement is certainly the wrong account. and again we have $300,000 in

this account for this purpose. and madam chairwoman, i would ask for a no vote. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. pastor: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and it's his and my effort to help the majority with the republican outreach to hispanic voters. and this amendment would increase by $150,000 the amount put aside for d. people who are not proper efficient. because of the record to -- pro efficient. we support this amendment and we yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 109, line 1, office of lead hazard control and healthy homes. $50 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. information technology fund, $100 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. office of inspector general, $124 million. general provisions, department of housing and urban development. section 201, 50% of the amounts recaptured from projects described of the stewart mckinney assistance amendment act of 1988 shall be canceled.

section 102, none of the amounts may be used to investigate or prosecute under the fair housing act any lawful activity for the purpose of achieving -- achieving action by a government official. section 203, sections 203 and ection 209 of public law shall apply if such sections were included in this title. section 204, any grant made pursuant to title 2 shall be made on a competitive basis. section 205, funds shall be available for legal services and for making payment for services of the federal national mortgage association. section 206, no part of any appropriations shall be available for any program in excess of amounts set forth in the budget estimates. section 207, corporations and agencies of the department are subject to the government

corporation control act, hereby authorized to make expenditures and contracts without regard to fiscal year limitations under ection 104 in carrying out the programs. section 208, the secretary shall provided quarterly reports to the committees regarding all-access funds in each program within the jurisdiction of the department. section 209, the president's budget request for fiscal year 2015, shall use the identical account structure provided under this act. section 210, a public housing agency that administers federal housing assistance for the housing authority for the county of los angeles, california, for states of alaska, iowa and mississippi, shall not be required to require a resident of public housing. . .

section 212, the secretary may authorize the transfer of some or all project-based assistance and low-income restrictions associated with one or more multifamily housing project to another multifamily housing project or projects. section 213, no assistance shall be provided under section 8 of the united states housing act of 1937 to any individual who is enrolled as a student at an institution of higher education as defined under section 102 of the higher education act of 1965, is not a vet rand -- veteran and is not otherwise eligible. section 214rks the funds made available -- 214, the funds made available for native for ans shall be allocated the same as in 2005. section 215, the secretary may ensure and enter into

commitments to ensure mortgages under section -- such section 255 -- subsection 255 section 216. in managing of any multifamily property owned by the secretary and during the process of foreclosure on any property with a contract for rental assistance payments, the secretary shall maintain any rental assistance payments and other programs that are attached to any dwelling units in the property. section 217, in connection with a program for use in assisted living facilities in the counties of the state of michigan, a family residing in an assisted living facility may be required to pay rent. section 218, the recipient of a grant under section 202-b of the housing act of 1959 may establish a single asset nonprofit entity and may lend the grant funds to such entity. section 219, the commitment

authority funded under the h.u.d. and community development loan guarantees program account may be used to guarantee notes or other obligations issued by any state on behalf of nonentitlement communities. section 220, public housing agencies that own 400 or fewer public housing units may elect to be exempt from any asset management requirement imposed by the secretary. section 221, the secretary shall not impose any requirement relating to asset management that restricts or limits the use of capital funds for central office costs pursuant to section 9-g of the united states housing act of 1937. section 222, no official of the department shall be designated as an allotment holder unless the office of the chief financial officer has determined such holder has implemented an adequate system of funds control.

section 223, the secretary shall report to the committees on the status of all section 8 project-based housing. section 224, the secretary shall notify the public through the federal register of the ssuance of a notice of the availability of assistance administered that is to be competively awarded. section 225, payment of attorney fees must be paid from individual program office personnel benefits. section 226, the secretary's altogether riced to -- authorized to transfer up to 5% or $5 million under the headings management and administration and program office salaries and expenses. section 227, disaster housing assistance programs shall be considered a program of the department of housing and urban development. section 228, none of the funds may be used by any public housing agency for any amount

of salary that exceeds the annual rate of basic pay payable for a position at level 4 of the executive schedule. section 229, title 2 of division k of public law 110-161 is amended. section 230, paragraph 1 of section 242-i of the national housing act is amended. section 231, subsection d of section 184 of the housing and community development act of 1992 is amended. section 232, amounts made available under the heading revitalization of severely distressed public housing hope vi may continue to be provided as assistance. under 233, the proviso ublic laws 109-148, 109-234, 110-252 and 110-329 which

requires the secretary to establish procedures to prevent duplication of benefits is amended. section 234, none of the funds may be used to require or enforce the green physical needs assessment. section 235, none of the funds in this act may be available for the docker toal dissertation grant research program. this may be cited as the department of housing and urban development appropriations anth, 2014 -- act, 2014. title 3, related agencies, access board, salaries and expenses, $7,400,000. federal housing finance agency, office of inspector general, $38 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. federal martime commission salaries and expenses. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 134, line 13, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $100,000. page 150, line 8-a the dollar amount insert, increase by $100,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment would reduce funding in the bill for the federal martime commission's salaries and expenses by $100,000 and transfer that same amount to the spending reduction account. this amendment would have the effect of bringing the appropriations for this purpose back to the current levels. hat we have right now. offered a similar amendment to this bill last year which would have eliminated a proposed $900,000 increase to this same account. unfortunately that amendment failed by 172-249 vote.

a pretty strong margin. so this year i bring the request to hold the line, to eliminate this very small increase of $100,000. an amount which is less than many bureaucrats here in washington take home as their yearly salary. perhaps more than any of my amendments that i've offered tonight, i hope that this one passes. madam chairman, because this amendment would strike $100,000 increase to federal employee salaries fails. it means that we're in serious, serious trouble when it comes to solving our spending problem. i urge my colleagues to prove my ong and to support amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: thank you. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: madam chairwoman, i'm not going to oppose this amendment. is an account that -- the

martime industry, with the concerns that we've had in some of the incidents on cruiseships, it's an account that is much-needed but with a very small reduction here, bringing back to last year's funding level, that would be acceptable to me and we would accept the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 134, line 16, national railroad passenger corporation office of inspector general, salaries and expenses, $25,300,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia.

page 134, line 22 after the dollar amount incertificate, reduce by $4,800,000. page 150, line 8, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $4,800,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. i've got good news for my friends from arizona and from iowa. this is the last amendment that i plan to offer on this bill. it would reduce the proposed funding for the amtrak office of inspector general salaries and expenses by $4,800,000. and transfer that same amount to the spending reduction account. like many of the amendments that i've offered today, it would simply remove a proposed increase returning the final amount back to current spending levels. the amtrak i.g.'s role is to root out waste, fraud and abuse within the corporation.

as i detailed during consideration in my earlier amendment related to amtrak, i am of the opinion that the i.g. still has a ways to go in this regard. yet the committee report includes an interesting statement which appears to serve as a pat on the back for the i.g. and perhaps even as a justification for this large proposed increase. the line simply says, quote, the committee appreciates that the amtrak o.i.g. submitted a separate budget request to the committees on appropriations and directs it to go so -- to do so in fiscal year 2015rks unquote. now, to my -- 2015, unquote. now, to my read, this means that simply because the o.i.g. did its job, it will receive nearly a $5 million in extra federal dollars for salaries and expenses. i think that's preposterous. madam chairman, i talked a lot

about amtrak's failings earlier. and i'm not going to reharbaugh rehash arguments -- the same arguments. i ask that my colleagues accept my amendment, hold the current spending to the current levels, let's live within our means and let's roll back this increase. i encourage acceptance of my amendment and i recommend an aye vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. latham: thank you, madam chairwoman. i must rise in happen -- in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. madam chairwoman, as you know, one of the very important functions of this committee is oversight. ensuring agencies under our purr view that -- per view are

efficiently and effectively managed. this bill provides amtrak, the o.i.g., with $25.3 million for oversight studies and investigations into fraud, waste and abuse of amtrak. through these investigations, the amtrak o.i.g. has helped improve the committee efficiency and effectiveness of amtrak programs and operations. amtrak o.i.g. runs a program that has identified improper and overpayments to the tune of $85 million. amtrak has collected some of this back which has saved the taxpayer money. the bill's funding levels are not arbitrary, madam chairwoman. we have scrubbed these accounts, we have held hearings and made recommendations on what must be funded. i think this is an extremely important function that we have so that we can look at amtrak and we're spending an awful lot of money with amtrak.

if we don't have a strong office of inspector general to keep tabs on it, i think this is money well spent and i would certainly urge a no vote on this amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back. the question the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the knows have it, the amend is not agreed to. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the entleman from -- mr. latham: i ask unanimous

consent that the remainder of the bill through page 150, line 2 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any time -- at any point. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. is there any amendment to that section of the bill? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 150, line 3, spending reduction account, section 420, the amount by which the applicable allocation of budget authority made by the committee on appropriations is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on

the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. pifment madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state union having had under 2610.eration h.r. 20 -- the speaker pro tempore: the committee reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2610 and has come to no resolution thereon.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that i be rehoffed as a co-sponsor to h.r. 2027. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ordered.bjection, so the chair now announces the speaker's appointment of section 313 of the legislative branch appropriations act 2001 2 u.s.c. 1151 as amended section 1601 public law 111-68 and order the house of january 3, 2013 of the following member on the part of the house to the board of trustees of the open world leadership center. the clerk: mr. moran of

virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the appointment pursuant to section 491 of the gher education act 20 u.s.c. 1098-c and order of the house january 3, 2013, the following individual on the part of the house to the advisory committee on student financial assistance of the term of four years. the clerk: mr. fred herst of flagstaff, arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the appoint of 20 u.s.c. and order of the house of january 3, 2013 of the following member on the part of the congressional executive commission of the peoples republic of china. the clerk: ms. kaptur of ohio

and mr. honda of california. the speaker pro tempore: the chair anoubses and the order of the house january 3, 2013 of the following member on the part of the house to the japan united states friendship commission. the clerk: mr. mcdermott of washington. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment of 2 u.s.c. 501-b and order of the house january 3, 2013 of the following member of the congressional mailing standards. the clerk: mrs. davis of california, mr. sherman of california, mr. richmond of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. horsford of nevada for today and balance of

the week and mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. latham: mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjour

>> in a few moments, a forum on the federal budget trust us. that includes comments from 2 former chairman of the senate budget committee. in a little less than 2.5 hours, a senate or in relations committee hearing on ambassadorial nominations. couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on c-span 3. the shunt -- the senate judiciary committee holds an oversight hearing of government surveillance programs at 9:00 a.m. eastern. at 3:00 p.m., a ceremony marking the fifth if anniversary of the march on washington. speakers include representative john lewis of georgia. >> i think they serve as a window on the past, to what was

going on with american women at any given time in our past history. if you look at a first lady's life, you get a few of what what is going on with women. the other thing i find very interesting, from a women's history standpoint, is that it is the conjunction of the public and private lives of women. that is a topic many scholars are interested in. it represents the coming together of a private life and a public life in an individual. >> watch the encore presentation of first ladies, from martha washington to ida mckinley, weeknights starting at 9:00 eastern. >> up next, a forum on the federal budget process, with

tommy thompson, and two former chairman of the senate budget committee. by the bipartisan policy center at george mason university. this is a little less than 2.5 hours. >> good morning. session, each we are calling budget on a break. it is cosponsored by the bipartisan policy center and george mason university center on public service. i am the director of the programs at george mason. a longer-termf multimedia project we are undertaking. it forms the history and trends in federal budgeting over the last 40 years. the past decades have not been uneventful for the budget. we have been swinging from budget surpluses back to deficits again.

today's economic tides are slowly lifting us out of the recession-induced episodes, government leaders are mired in gridlock that seems to threaten the continuity of government itself. there is no wonder why we call the session "budgeting at the rink." history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. it is useful periodically to look back in order to move forward. today's challenge is truly novel. do they resemble previous had earns? what can we learn from previous battles and previous issues to inform our current seemingly- intractable budget situation? that is the focus of this meeting. we did our first session together in november of 2012. it was on the 1990 budget agreement.

, where wea report brought together people like speaker tom foley, johnson new reflect backrs, to on the lessons learned from achieving the grand bargain of yesterday. and what application it might have to today. one constant over the past several decades, it increasingly, has been collective paralysis. i am not talking about the elusive grand bargain. i am talking about monday and actions to provide funding for operations and programs of the government will stop the consequences of gridlock in the budget is different than gridlock in immigration or social security. we do not pass those programs, we live to see another day. we do not pass a budget, we shut down. these issues about how to achieve agreement on whose terms are vital to everything government does.

lines, and over the past 37 years, bill joyce of the university of maryland has have only hadt we appropriations before the budget year starts in 4 of those last seven years. agencies cope with temporary measures -- continuing resolutions, five or six a year. increasingly, contractors are on a short-term leash. the uncertainty provoked by this has become the new normal in washington and throughout the country. of uncertainty has been ratcheted up to new levels with the current budget sequesters. it is a device that cuts across programs universally, regardless of whether they are effective or ineffective. agencies are literally caught between a president and a congress vying for public support. planning was a victim of these

battles. agencies never knew whether the ax would fall on them, and how. policyll review how managers are coping with the hasedible conflict that befallen the budget process. has the budget process seized up? congress,aders in the the white house, and agencies adapt? we are fortunate to have assembled a wonderful slate of panelists today, political leaders from the recent past as well as budgetary experts who can make the system work. i am going to now turn the program over to our first and second panels. the first is being led by phil , who needs no introduction to veterans of the budget process, having served as staff director or of the senate budget committee for several years, and assistant to the senate majority leader. the second panel, which will

continue after this one, is being moderated by a longtime senior management staff member at omb. hand it overt me to bill. >> thank you. good morning, everyone. welcome to the bipartisan holiday center. it is a pleasure to be cohosting this discussion with george mason university. a wise person once said that the are there back you look, the further ahead you can see. be anf this forum was to oral history, looking back on the budget, folks that have lived the history of it. but i have a feeling we will be looking ahead more than looking back. unfortunately, we are restrained by time. we have five very distinguished public servants who have labored in these vineyards of adderall, state tom and local budgeting

over decades. rather than take the time to reduce each of them here, you have their bios. will introduce them briefly as i asked him a first round of questions, looking back on their history. we will then have time for a second round of questions looking forward, what they might see coming this fall. time permitting, within an hour or so, we will have an opportunity for you to ask questions of them yourself. ladies first. ok? garvey was the first ever woman to administer the faa. by presidentnted clinton in 1997. very bipartisan. serve underd to president george w. bush 2002. being the administrator

of the faa, she was the acting and deputy administrator of the federal highway administration. was the logan airport, in boston, manager. she currently heads the u.s. public-private partnership at jpmorgan. most importantly, she is a past chairman of the bipartisan policy board of directors, and continues to be a board member with us. in 1997, when you first took over faa, the agency was spending about $9 billion. shortly before you arrived, the agency estimated you would need $10 billion annually to meet usage, andsenger protecting the safety of the flying public. recall, the budget resolutions that year were only $7.5 to provide about billion, a $2.5 billion gap. further complicating your job as

you are coming in, and assessment of the agency was 1996, the agency reauthorization act. quote,concluded, and i the faa had no system to account for its cost, and managers could generally not manage money properly. stated, how did you successfully transform the faa while managing a $10 billion budget? just for the record, when you left in 2002, that figure had billion, and today it is a $22 billion agency. >> you make it sound so appealing. i wonder why i took the job. you are exactly right. congress, and others were critical of the faa. they said, we do not know where

the money is going. we had tothing was, put a sophisticated cost accounting system in place. tough to do. we had to bring in outside experts, consultants many of our colleagues in the private sector are. we were able, with a talented cfo and staff, to roll out, over months and years, a cost accounting system that gave us a good handle on where money was being spent, and more importantly, where we might be able to save money. critical questions, going forward, for the faa in 1997, was building up credibility. we had some issues. one was labor-management relationships. we were really stuck. theress had given us ability to negotiate contracts with controllers, but we had hit a logjam. seriously, andry felt if we really wanted to move

forward, we had to first resolve the labor-management issues. we were able to do that will stop i will say it was not without its challenges. we were criticized i saw him, who we had given the controllers too much. we secured productivity gains. most importantly, they became very full partners in the modernization program. that was critical for us for the five years. the second issue was the issue with the airlines. modernization was something they felt intellectually committed to, but they were skeptical of the faa's ability. we reversed course. we worked with the airlines. that was in keeping with the budget we knew we were going to have. we said, what are the investments we need to make over three to five years that are strategic and important, and will move modernization forward? we came up with a program called

free flight, i think because we went to the administration with the airlines, with our workforce. we were able to secure the budget to move forward. the last issue i wanted to mention was the safety agenda. we had come off very horrible accidents, twa and valujet will was,the challenge for us how could we create confidence in the american public? programd we create a that dealt with some of the safety issues? withng with nasa, working a number of colleagues in the industry, we created a data program that identified withrsors, trends to deal some of the safety issues. i think that has worked very well, and i have to give credit to the faa that have through subsequent administrators taken that to the next level. i think that accounts for the extraordinary safety program record the faa has.

strokes, i would say identifying an agenda with full engagement of stakeholders. that ising that agenda achievable in the short term as well as the long-term -- those are certainly some of the approaches we took to build the budget. you always leave these jobs thinking there is so much more you could do, but i think we were able to move forward during those five years. >> thank you. the gunner tommy thompson was governor tommy thompson was the 42nd governor of wisconsin, the longest serving in that state's history. he was governor of amtrak. he was secretary of the department of health and human to 2000 five,2001 appointed by president george w. bush. has recently, the governor

joined the bipartisan policy center here as a senior advisor, and we welcome him very much to our organization. governor, the budget for hhs was you took over in 2001 about $380 billion, according to my record. along with social security administration then, that was the largest, and is the largest today, of the domestic agencies. when you left at the end of 2004, it had grown $200 billion, billion agency. you were hit with a slew of emergencies. amtrak, avian flu, and the need to stockpile smallpox vaccines. you also cleared a backlog of waivers and state plans to help

expand health insurance coverage to low income americans. when i look at your budget -- i know we were supposed to talk about constrained budgets. youone might conclude -- had no budget constraints on your agency. i kind of doubt that. andersonnd barry shortly gave you a budget topline. how did you go about setting priorities when you submitted your budget to capitol hill? and if congress place restraints on your discretionary budget that you had not anticipated? i being the conservative that am, it was an interesting time. time,ve to understand the and why the department grew like it did. there,st year that i was nine months into it, 9/11 happened.

until that time, the budget office was very much trying to control spending at the department of health and human services. the truth of the matter was, 9/11 came. everybody was looking for who is going to be able to pick up the pieces. the first tremendous emergency was smallpox. at the time i took over, there were only 12 million doses of smallpox vaccine available in order to protect the american public. we were lucky enough -- we asked pharmaceutical companies to look in their reserves, and see if there was any chance they might be able to find some. one company found 62 million doses of smallpox in a locked , and the company had been changed three times, and they found it all stop we found out that the smallpox vaccine, which had been manufactured in 1952, was still capable of vaccinating america. you could reduce it 4-1.

we had enough vaccine right away because of that. that took care of that. the next problem was, nobody knew how to handle the protection of health in america. we had starved public health agencies at the state level. being a governor prior to that time, i saw a tremendous opportunity. omb did not care that much about what i was doing over at the department, so they gave me flexibility to build the local and state public health system. we put a tremendous amount of money in that. then, amtrak came. everybody was worried about the threats. since homeland security had not been created yet, the department of health and human services was the place to go. everybody gave us pretty much a blank check to develop the public health system, the vaccine system. we have not spent any money on food safety.

correctly, i was passionate about trying to protect food safety, because i figured that was the next ways. spending 200 million dollars in food safety all over america, and we had 80% of the food coming in that was under our jurisdiction. you could see a tremendous possibility for threat, and for any kind of terrorist action. we put a lot of money into that. we also had a vice president biden name of the cheney, who felt it was absolutely necessary to ratchet up all the protections we possibly could. pretty much, put the money in the department of health and human services. every time omb said, you cannot spend it, dick cheney says, i will take care of it. we were able to have a very strong voice in the oval office, always saying, spend the money. protect america.

that was the clarion call. it was not preserving the money so much as making sure you , veryped a tremendous robust state health care system, and protected america's great vaccination system. into we decided to get encouraging small companies that did not have money to put money into start products and get them to the marketplace. that was another big thing. i got very active with colin powell, into the aids mom -- aids movement. we put a tremendous amount of money into aids. my department, with the national institute of health, was able to set up the millennium fund. andook it to the president, the president agreed to take it over, as well as the global fund, which i chaired. i was able to convince president bush to put the first money into

the global fund. that increased the amount of money. 's you know, the president number one program he refers to now is the millennium fund. that was started in the department. it was our idea. we never got credit for it, but it was ours. that is what happens. we werey, it was a time not able to constrain the budget, since there was not homeland security. everyone gave us a pass to do what was necessary to build it. the department of public -- health and human service -- public safety was the reason for the budget. i knew the congressman when he was only a lowly state legislator. i have had a tremendous amount of respect and camaraderie. we have had our fights. i guess everybody who has been with him has had a fight with him, but it has always been good. he was extremely good to me, and senator conrad was. i have to stop talking.

when i was in the green room three minutes ago, don reached speak 20said, you minutes. i will speak 20 minutes. let those other people worry about the other 20 minutes. i have to get done, because i am getting the eyes. it was a great time and a great opportunity to grow and agency and actually protect america. that was the clarion call we were able to do. >> at least in 1998, 1999, and into 2001, we were running a surplus. it does make a bit of difference. i did not necessarily plan it this way. but another badger state alumni -- he was the longest-serving member of either house in wisconsin. history. wisconsin's history. most importantly for this

discussion, he was the chairman of the powerful house appropriations committee twice. 1995, and 2007-2011, when he retired from congress. it is with some trepidation that i ask this question as a budget chair. i know, when the congressional budget control act was enacted in 1974, you had real concerns about the act, and thought the new budget committees -- remember, you are pigeonholed by 2 budget committee chairman -- would be captured by conservatives. looking back on history, you have gone through many a government shutdown. i counted them up this morning. during your10 days time on the appropriations committee that we had government shutdown, the worst thing in

1995, 1996, 21 days of government shutdown. you even went through a sequester. the question is, is there anything good you can say about the budget process and helping agencies manage their operations? me simply say that when the budget act was passed, i circulated a nine page memo to every member of the democratic caucus, laying out my concerns about it. i wish i had been prescient enough to list all the problems that would develop in the future. worth, had nine pages but in fact, we wound up having even more problems. i went back last night and took a look at the initial speech that bowling gave, who was the father of the budget act, and was my mentor in the house. this is what said in his first

statement during the debate on the budget act. he said, the objective of budget reform should be to make congress informed about and responsible for its budget actions, not to take away its power to act. second, he said, budget reform must not be an instrument for preventing congress from expressing its will on spending policy. i invite all of you to ask yourself how successful the budget committee has been, how successful the congress has been, in meeting those warnings raised by:. i am always amused when people talk about one of the answers to the budget problems being that we should move to a two-year budget. i think history shows we would be very lucky to move to a

three-month budget, given all the delays in sequestration's and shutdowns we have had. we did have government shutdowns in those days. but they were for reasons that of anyr beyond the reach of the committees involved. fact, the first year i was chairman, we finished every single appropriation bill before the end of the fiscal year. that did not happen because dave was smart. it happened because i had a cooperative ranking member, a republican. chairman, i said, we are never going to agree on the details of the appropriation bills, but why don't we at least have a bipartisan allocation to each of the subcommittees, so at least we agree on how much should be in each of these bills.

jill agreed. that key decision is why we were able to finish every single bill on time. i think the problem with the all, itct is, first of has made it harder for the congress to do its principal job of passing appropriation bills. second, without adding more months to the calendar, it has consumed a huge amount of time, with a new additional process, which has been largely , asticized and polarized has been considered by the congress. it hasould also say that failed to accomplish its main goal, which was to reduce deficits. larger as adeficits percentage of gdp after the budget act passed than we did before it passed. i do not see what goals it accomplished.

the one good thing is, it created a congressional budget office, something which was sorely needed. if you want me to find one good thing about the budget process, that is it. i think there is a fundamental flaw in the way the process works. the way it works is that the budget committees climb to laying out what they want the macroeconomic numbers to be. what they want for revenues, what they want for direct spending, what they want for entitlements. then, the appropriations committee has to actually implement that process. so they have to make the hundreds and hundreds of detailed decisions. and the problem is, the system is warped because of the way it is working today. the budget committee produces its macroeconomic dreams, but it is not balanced by what that means on a program by program basis.

or patty hal rogers murray's fault that we cannot get appropriation bills passed. the problem is that there is a huge difference in judgment about what is achievable on the part of the budget committee. that same judgment produces a different result in the appropriations and ways and means committee. i think that is a fundamental flaw which has to be dealt with. that process alone is not the problem. my friend archie the cockroach said, what- he matters is not the system that you have. you do with is what whatever system you happen to have. if tommy tell you, thompson and i were running these committees today, i know what we would do, because i know what we did in the good old days back in madison.

in madison in those days, we would fight like hell from 9:00 until 5:00. when we adjourned, we would go to the bar. the democrats would sit at one table and the republicans would sit at one table, and the reporters would sit at the bar, with their typewriters, and they would type their stories. they would come to our tables and asked us what was going on, and what was our response to what the other guys said. we would work it out. today, because we have seen the passing of the world war ii generation, in my view, there is much less of a sense of duty to the whole. there is much less a sense that, i disagree with him, but we have to get this worked out. defines is supposed to differences, and then it is supposed to find a way to resolve them. the problem is that politicians have gotten very good at defining the problem, and the system does not help in finding

ways to resolve it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are three chairman here, so i have to be careful. served his home state of oklahoma in the u.s. senate for over 24 years, from 1987 to 2005. >> 81. you took off a term. >> she looks young because he is. he was the youngest republican senate,cted to the u.s. at the age of 32, i believe. 31? just under the constitution, i guess. assistant to the senate republican leader from 1996 to 2003, with trent lott. term limited. he became chairman of the senate budget committee in 2003-2005. when you took over the senate

budget committee in 2003, the federal deficit in the previous year stood at $160 billion. when you left, it exceeded $400 billion, three point .4% gdp in both cases. it is unfair to you to look only at those years, but congress did pass the medicare modernization act, part d, prescription drug. and you were instrumental in the 2003ge of president bush's tax reform that reduced capital gains and corporate dividends to 15%. thenues as a share of economy increased until the next chairman came along in 2007. i know you were and remain a strong advocate that reduced tax rates result in increased economic growth, and i do not entirely disagree.

but i guess the question is the reverse of the proverbial starve the beast approach to force spending constraint. grow -- if the deficit as a share of the economy comes down, as it is now. congress toe exists on th constrain public budgets and eliminate wasteful spending? >> i want to revise a little history. you mentioned the deficit was $160 billion in 2002. i became chairman in 2003. as you know, because you have marked up budgets -- we were working on the 2004 budget. 2003 is already in place. deficit was $277 billion. and you are right that three years later it was about $400 billion. we made significant progress

because of the tax bill. revenues were really flat. year 2000, you might remember, you had a market collapse during the campaign year and so on. at one point,5000 and 2000 in december of that year. markets collapsed. revenues collapsed. 2001its were exploding in and 2002 and 2003. we passed a tax bill, and gdp took off. was $10 trillion. we had significant economic growth during that time. about 3.5% gdp per quarter for those years. i just happen to look it up. toenues went from 16.2% 18.2% in 2006. revenue as a percent of gdp,

with gdp growing significantly -- revenues grew, in spite of the fact that we did the tax cut. we did cut taxes on corporate dividends and revenues from both of those. it went up dramatically. not by inflation. they went up in multiples. by reducing capital gains rates and reducing the rate on corporate distribution of profits to their owners, revenues significantly increased to the government. what happens now, when you have some sort of good economic news? the deficit is declining somewhat, from $1.2 trillion to $700 billion will stop the president made a speech last week. i was successful. ,e reduced deficit spending down $400 billion from where it was last year.

he is patting himself on the back. this year, the mid-session review just announced a reduction in the deficit for this year of $219 billion. most of that was fannie and freddie. a lot of revenues were the custody but were free enough to do deals in the fourth quarter of last year. the capital gains rate last year was 15%. 23.8%, as at is result of tax increases in january. capital gains rates went to 23.8%, a 58% increase in capital gains tax. a lot of deals were done and now are showing up. people wanted to hurry up and crowd those in at the lower rates.

about $600 billion came from .ncreased -- from increased revenue. but the deficit goes up. he left that out. big problems exist, remain, continue, and get worse. the president proposed a budget. it has a trillion dollars in new taxes, new revenues, a trillion dollars in new spending. does not do anything on the deficit. i do not think he cares one iota on the deficit will stop -- on the deficit. the bipartisan policy center has been leaders on that. --n simpson and irking bowls bowlesd bowls -- erksine have been doing fantastic work.

we cannot continue with the explosion of a lot of entitlements in the out years. there are not going to be as many people contributing. that outlay is not really sustainable. the president has provided no leadership. very little leadership from congress. that is regrettable. it curtails the ability to do significant deficit reduction. we do not have a budget for three or four years. i hope they get a conference agreement deal done towards the end of the year. they are a long way apart. wants to have trillions of dollars over 10 reformnd not to do tax unless you do that, the chances of that happening are zero. almost -- it is more than

chilling. , in myery regrettable opinion. it will not happen. there will not be a grand bargain. these long-term problems will get worse. >> there's a difference of opinion. member to leave a senator.ace was i know him to be as concerned as anyone about the fiscal outlook and one who worked tirelessly to try to get something done before he left the senate last year. the chairman of the senate budget committee from tiny -- 2007-2013. it was during an extremely difficult time for our financial system. and our economy and federal budget.

deficit stoodhe at -- 2% gdp. in 2007. when the findings -- when the --nal findings came in time, itack over your would not do enough to constrain spending? should we have been a partner on a committee and agency budgets? budgeting at the brink with cr's and supercommittee's and sequesters, did they really work or are they nuisances? do they put off real, painful constraints as we have seen in europe and detroit last week? know, you have framed

this very well. i think it is important to put things in context. years,go back to those it was an extraordinary time in american the school history. i will never forget being called into an emergency meeting in the fall of 2008 to the majority leader's office. i was the last to arrive because i was chairing a meeting. i walk in and there were maybe six teen leaders in the room. the chairman of the fed reserve and the treasury of the secretary the bush administration. it was evening. the posted a guard at the door and closed the door. it was very unusual. i knew something dramatic was afoot.

down and the meeting began. the chairman of the fed reserve said they were taking over a large insurance company the next day. they make clear they were not there to seek our advice or approval. they were there to inform us they were taking steps. if they did not do it, they believed it would be a financial collapse within days. that gets your attention. they then went into some considerable detail as to why a financial collapse would occur. they named specific companies that would go under. companies that were important to .he american economy it sent a collective shudder through that room. it became clear that we were in the middle of a financial crisis

unlike anything since the great depression. steps thathat the were taken sensitively by the the -- substantively by bush administration during their days and the steps taken during the obama administration and the steps by the fed reserve, if those steps collectively were not taken, i believe he would have gotten into a depression. it is a small price to be paid for the additional debt that was taken on. have a very big problem. the thing that brought me to public life was debt. i was deeply concerned about the project or he the country -- about the projectory the country was on.

with respect to domestic spending, that is not the problem. 1969, we were almost 14% of gdp on domestic discretionary spending. 6%., that was down to it was dramatically reduced. 2012, that was back up to just over number eight percent of gdp . no were close to where it was back in 1968 or 1969. it is not in the appropriated account. the problem exists, in my -- the healthcare economy. we were at 1% gdp in the

healthcare comes back in 1970. we're headed on the path we are on e percent gdp in the healthcare -- 12% gdp in healthcare. that is where the explosion in spending is recruiting. it is in the healthcare economy. on the other side of the equation is the revenue. this is where i had differences with some of my republican colleagues. they say it is a spending problem. if you look at the chart of spending and revenue over the ago,60 years, three years we were at a 60 year low on revenue and 60 year high on spending. year low on revenue and 60 year high on spending. no wonder we had record deficit.

, when some of our friends say it is a spending problem, they have got it half right. yeah, we have a spending problem . it was necessitated to a void a depression. exacerbatedoblem tax cuts we could not afford. to aok our revenue base low. my judgment is that we have to have both halves of the equation. we have to have more discipline, especially on the parts of the spending that is growing. accounts.tlement primarily, healthcare. he have also got to work on the revenue side of the equation. we are still not back to where we need to be on revenue.

at the historic records, if you looked over the past two years, revenue has been at about 20% of gdp. are sent of gdp revenue this year. we are short of where we have been -- 17.5% of gdp revenue this year. we have been short over we have been. we are expecting revenue to be -- it is still somewhat short of where we have in the last five times we have balanced. i am honored to be part of this panel. colleague.th my when he gives you his word, it is good. that is a very important thing. he was selling you is willing to work together to get something done. we have had disagreements, the

we work together really. you never question where he was on an issue. he made it clear. [laughter] tommy was a joy. he was an absolute joy to work with. do we read everything? did we agreet -- on everything? no, we did not. but we wanted results. the problem is the problem. the problem is people who are unwilling to get results -- and it is not just on one side of the aisle. i wish it were. it would make it easier. we have got problems on both sides of the aisle. let's get something done. >> it is a good segue for our rapidfire. we can open it up to respond.

the department of commerce will release its eliminator a second- quarter gdp -- its second- quarter gdp figures. it might be difficult to figure it all out tomorrow. some analysts expect it could be less than 1%. , congress is out planning on leaving and going vacation.he august when we return, there will be less than nine legislative days before the new fiscal year begins. there have been no 2014 appropriations bills some to the president. agreedate house has not to even go to conference on a budget resolution passed by both chambers. those two budget resolutions for

differencebillion between the senate and the house. $91 billion. unbelievable. we will reach -- we will run out of cash. we will reach the end of our rope sometime between the end of october and the middle of november. hasetary lou has -- lew made it clear that administration will not negotiate on the debt limit increase. and mandatory programs that will be can it not tober and a much larger one -- that will begin in october.

i think it is fair to say we are at the brink again. you have all been there. what should we or the american public anticipate how this will turn out? i will open it out for anyone to take that on. look likely that congress is going to get a big deal. lew andement that mr. the president made on not negotiating on a debt limit is ridiculous. i have been to a lot of debt limit extension negotiations. the administration may not like them, but they have to sign the bill. >> it includes the moment nation

of funding for the affordable care act -- it includes the elimination of funding for the affordable care act? >> not sure about that. i'm trying to remember. i think we passed the congressional review act as part of the debt limit. harry reid was a principal sponsor. to writehas a right legislation. the president can sign it and veto. -- or veto. congress has to pass it. they have to be mindful. if they want to defund affordable care act, they need something that will get through the senate. congress has to pass a debt limit extension at some point. they are running into a significant dilemma. it takes leadership from congress and the white house to avoid the train wreck.

before, -- >> that might be a good segue. i guess the president is meeting tomorrow with democrats in both the house and the senate. what should the president expect when he meets with congress tomorrow? >> let me say that i was born in oklahoma. it is the last thing i have in common with -- [laughter] said it was ridiculous for the president to negotiate. joined to has been

the debt ceiling. that is ridiculous. --puts that fund the reptile it puts the fundamental risk and the leadership capability worldwide. that is what is ridiculous. what is ridiculous is that we have had a fight about mathematics over the past three years. it misses the big problem. is the fact that we have had a huge transfer of income over the last 30 years. eroding thet is pocketbook earnings of average, middle-class families. parties working together to figure out how to attack that problem on a bipartisan basis rather than .aving another silly debate

there is one problem in the process that bothers me. it has becomesons so politicized is because congress is never at work anymore. they come in here -- when i started, we started the session monday afternoon. it went until friday morning. atay they come in at tuesday 6:30 p.m. and they are in town for a full day on wednesday and thursday by noon they are gone and heading for their planes. as a result, they never have the time to learn the substance of an issue. they do not have time to learn the substance of an issue. they fall back on the politics of the issue. it becomes more polarized. members have to spend so much time being glorified

telemarketers and raising money for their campaigns that they and little time to work out understand the differences. are not going you to get these problems solved until we have developed a higher degree of confidence in the other guys personality and concerns until we have learned all over again how to work together. it takes time. unique to get to know the human chemistry and the people you are dealing with -- you need to get to know the human chemistry and the people you are dealing with. optimistic,s overly -- i am always overly optimistic, i guess. [laughter] signs.opeful

i saw it and immigration. i saw it in the farm bill. but you know, things have got to got -- i've got to start somewhere. i think the president does care about the deficit. he has got to prioritize. prioritization. now the deficit is coming down. $1.1 trillion last year. they are bringing it down. that is a dramatic improvement. the long-term has not been dealt with. the failure, collective failure

has been the inability and unwillingness to deal with our long-term prospects. least athere is at chance we will not have the grand bargain, but we could have an additional increment of deficit reduction that i think would help economic confidence. the president has laid out something that would make an important contribution. that will change the cpi. about $250u by billion. there is a much bigger benefit for the second and third 10 years. yous entirely possible that do have a negotiation around the debt limit. know, whether it is right or wrong, to get an agreement on a debt limit extension, there will have to be

some larger concessions. it will have to be around a long-term fiscal trajectory. there is an opportunity to get some additional revenue. i think we could've raised revenue without raising rates. also, long-term entitlement reforms. not some grand bargain, but another step. the budget control act, people say we do not have a budget. aw called theet l budget control act. it cut funds out of domestic spending over 10 years was that we coupled that with the dreaded sequester that also save money. now you're at $3.6 trillion. trillions ofther

adjustment, we would be on a much sounder track. the last word on this before we open it up to questions from the audience. deficit coming down is because of the sequester has stayed in effect. that means that there is potential for another sequester and another issue as it relates to faa. if you were working there, how would you be planning? >> there are two issues that are critical for the faa. first of all, understand what the scenario is. the difficult issue will be policy issues. if this is going to go into effect, do you furlough employees?

do you hold back on some of the modernization? do you not furlough employees? those are tough policy decisions that have to be made. i would urge the faa and i am sure they are looking at those questions very seriously. the concern is not so much 2014. they might get by. it will not be easy, but they will make it i. -- it by. you would like to think it is an opportunity for some consolidation and changes that might have been difficult and surplus times. the policy issues that have to be laid out in a very transparent way. >> the last word before we open it up to questions from the audience. >> i refer to questions like that as to what the surrogate best that in -- it is

you do not see it being made. our democracy is -- has not been as tidy as we would like. it we have a problem, we solve it. everyone of us would like to make the adjustments and have a beer. be would make things happen. but congress today usually refers every ask effectively to emergency. i look back to the 50s. behind the russians and then all of a sudden america came together. we were way behind. america was wide open. never thought we could have an attack on american soil. we came together.

there hasn't been an attack on america since then. we had our backs against the wall. i was not there. they came up and made a solution. the budget control act that was being talked about, it had some good to it. senator nichols came in with a tax cut. you can argue about whether or not revenue cuts are good. i think they are. that is a partisan difference. government and emergencies come together to work. i'm certain american will come together. we will not allow the country to go down because we cannot get along. we will fight like hell in the 11th hour. i'm certain the same thing will happen again. >> welcome to the bipartisan

policy center. [laughter] allison has a microphone. two minutes for questions. please identify yourself and your organization. >> thank you. my name is dave. i'm with a publications company. we have talked a lot about some of the longer term, but members of the panel, do you believe that there will be some kind of continuing resolution? or will be be a government shutdown in sober? do you believe we will not come to an agreement until the ceiling has been reached? >> no, i do not think there will be a shutdown.

will pass a continuation. my guess is the house will pass a continuation. it will be short. there'll be added interest on all sides. hopefully they will over the sequester and come up with a bigger package. i have met with chairman cap. they want to do a deal. -- chairman camp. they want to do a deal. they want to make the tax code more efficient. you can raise revenue in some areas and reduce rates and make the economy grow more. the government can make more money in the process. i know that can happen. you can tax it. as a result, you can reduce waste. marginal rates are too high.

over two percent -- over 50%. that is counterproductive. you do not have to be at a high income level for that to happen. you're working for the government more than you are working for yourself. >> i believe you are also on the finance committee. where we have some agreement. not complete agreement. i was part of the group of six. we proposed raising revenue not by raising marginal rates. i happen to agree with senator nichols on this point. you can raise revenue. lower marginal rates that exist. it would put together a package that would raise revenue and lower marginal rates. it would give a lift to the economy.

a five-story building in the cayman islands. it claims to be the home of 18,000 companies. they say they are doing business out of that house in cayman islands. .hey're not doing business dylan business they are doing is theavoidance business -- only business they are doing is tax avoidance in that united states. does anyone think that is a tax increase for those people to suntan what we are paying? i do not. >> question over here. one over here. my name is dennis. i'm an independent consultant. you were talking about the process of the difficult policies discussions that have

to take place. it made a statement of making that more transparent. moree -- can you be specific on what you mean by more transparent? as opposed to the sausage comment that your colleague may thetion my >> -- like sausage comment that your colleague made? the consumers carry great deal about that. there are lots of opportunities. laying out those options so people can understand. though theressions is a -- so there is a full understanding of what the trade- .ffs are

sometimes people are not clear on exactly what the trade-offs are and what the considerations that an agency is giving. you can do that in a pretty transparent way. >> a few more questions. >> bryan alexander. i'm writing a dissertation. [laughter] i have been following these discussions for a long time. i have a question about sequestration. there are a lot of dire forecast and predictions. now that we have seen it in effect and we are going toward some ofround, where did work out the worst and better than what you thought? the state update on

of sequestration and how bad it is or how bad it hasn't been. i thinkld say this -- sequestration as a policy really doesn't make a lot of sense. it is $1.2 trillion of cuts out of the domestic accounts that are going down already. we are cutting the part of the federal budget that is already in decline. we are not addressing the part of the federal budget that is growing dramatically. as a policy matter, it does not make sense. it was put in place, as you know, to try to persuade congress to work on the other parts of the equation that do you need fixing -- that do need fixing. put in place was to try to provide incentives for congress to act.

instead, we could not reach a conclusion. here we are. as adverse ofve an effect as some have it. it is starting to bite. use but about one percent of gdp . -- you expect about 1% of gdp. you can't avert that. anybody here who thinks it is a good idea to cut cancer research or parkinson's or alzheimer's? i think that is one of the worst examples of sequestration. the second thing that bugs me, i remember going into vice president biden's office and the four simpson-bowles got together. it is notas saying domestic discretionary that is a problem. it is the other parts of the budget.

everybody agreed with that, but every year when the results come out, they go after that part of the budget because it is the easy one. it is the one that you have to pass every year unlike other pieces of the budget. that is why it is backwards. >> last question and we have to move on. this has been a wonderful panel. greenspan chair the commission to reduce social security. 1990, the whole theory was you would hold hands and jump together. what is different today? why doesn't that work? how can we do something like that? having been deeply involved in bowls since since, we have proposed -- having been deeply

involved in bowles-simpson, we have proposed -- we all jump together. after the end of the day, we need to find a way. if you have told the american people, they would say to not touch the revenue. touch medicare or social security or defense. dealing thing they're willing to cut is foreign aid and taxing the rich. we would have to ask those who are not paying their fair share whomight a very wealthy or is paying a hefty sure, there are some who are not. are middleome who class and paying their fair share. i think you have got an

opportunity to do something that would advance the country and strengthen our economy. we still have that opportunity. >> i want to say thank you to the panelists for today and for all of their long public service . i appreciate them taking the time to come here eerie thank you. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this panel is going to explore the management.

the heavy lifting of applying sequestration to program activities happens in the agency. the decision about who gets funded and who doesn't are made at the program project and level.ies or ppa we will hear from several budget were in thee trenches and making these decisions. they will offer their insight into how agencies go about making what are very technical thatations and decisions meet the requirements of sequestration. and have agencies cope with budget uncertainty. i will begin with anderson on my has ear it very anderson

and the national governors association and overseas. he has a governmentwide perspective on these matters. he was administered the first sequestration in 1986. and a subsequent one through 1991. that isn'ton was in now everybody's first choice. how does it work? did it as you expected? >> i'm glad you mentioned history of sequestration. . a lot of people do not go back there not realize that were four or so sequestration's that went into effect in the late 1880s and 90s.

when this came around, it surprised me how different it was from those that were implemented back in the late 80s and 90s. the statement that nobody wanted it to go into effect is right. sequestration wasn't the policy goal. it was an enforcement mechanism. that was as true back then as it was now. have sequestration in place right now for fiscal year 2013. people ine have the congress who have a limit for which they are to reach appropriations. i do not know that there is anyone in either house that

would like that. there isn't a sequestration that would happen on the first of october or in fiscal year 2014 it was exceeded. the fundamental difference is very large. was one of the team that implemented it back then. this tragedy on the part of the administration -- the strategy on the part of the administration is that they could take action to avoid or replace of the sequestration. come march 1,t, when sequestration came into sudden you hada furloughs. were there flows back in the 80s? no. was it difficult to implement?

yes. the planning done in anticipation of the sequestration might occur and did occur in the 80s and 90s. it was different from the strategy on part of the administration. they managed to win big on new year's eve. i knew they thought they would win and get it waived or postponed or delayed or replaced. partresult, the actions on of the agencies were much different than what occurred. what happened on march 1, there is a fundamental difference between agencies who responded to the administration's goal of getting to waive the sequestration and those that were not quite so sure demonstration would be successful. almost all of the legislative

branch agencies, most of the congressional committees, and the independent agencies are never furloughed. why? they do not have to. they withheld money. when the sequestration did take effect, they were able to do it without furloughs. the executive branch agencies who are tied closer to the administration said to not worry about it. we will get it waived. in thental differences sequestration of the 80s and 90s and what we have now. person with ather governmentwide perspective. you are a senior fellow of the center for american progress. andhave been a clerk

earlier staffer to the house appropriations committee. you come at this with a knowledgeable background. post", "the washington wrote a story called "budget cuts with no chaos." milderuester was much than everyone was forecasting. it said so many predictions fell short. administration and congress did what it was supposed to do. it was supposed to be impossible. what do you think are the real impacts of sequestration? is it true that it undid many scary predictions? managinghe agencies this rather alarming situation? bighey are basically four

things that happened that made to question a lot less than it would have been otherwise. -- that made sequestration a lot less than it would have been otherwise. a -- a cut sequestration. sequestrationth that would have been 8-9% for domestic agencies. that was the first thing. the second thing is that sequestration has two phases. a lot of government programs run month to month. they spend about 112 of their budget each month. those are the agencies that were in real trouble, at least in the beginning. are there agencies are grants and contracts. they tend to work all year. agencies you would never

see very much until the end of the year on what happened. congress went back and fixed a lot of the month to month budget agencies. they gave the defense to budget much more latitude than was passed in february. i know dave can talk a lot more about that. special meeting section that would've prevented it problem. they did a faa fix. they would transfer money from the fund. they also did an extraordinary sweetheart deal. the basically allowed them to take money that had lapsed and recycled that money which no other agency could do. they use that to stop the furloughs. the justice department would have been the single biggest problem in that area.

it is made up of salaries that are paid every two weeks. u.s. law attorneys, prison guards, people that we need to have on-the-job the job and who would have been laid off. they did a lot of things to fix that. is off-base isy in terms of the impact on grants. money wouldducation go out and the money we would pump out to grants to local school districts. that money will have a 5% cut which will be about 2.5 billion dollars less going out to local school districts. there's talk before of the national institutes of health. budgetve a $30 billion in which they would lose money. that would come directly out of

research investigation and grants. we will have the lowest number of those grants that we have had in decades. it will have a real impact. the consequence of all of this, inas doing some research this affects economic growth. i look at international examples of that. gdp -- a bigof range goes from three countries under 28% -- japan, switzerland, the u.s. -- and two countries

over 48%. huge variations and level of taxation. two of the three countries with the highest level of taxation where the fastest-growing of all of the countries. , japan, and sweden were on the bottom half -- i mean switzerland, were on the bottom half. you do not find a very big correlation between what portion of gdp is taken in taxes and what is spent. it seems to be somewhat negative. the thing i think is most ofortant is not the portion taxes began in gdp gdp, but how well we spend it. i do not think we can come up with a dumber plan than the sequestration. governments is by its definition is an entity that the private sector cannot do.

we put man in space in which the private sector is trying to come to terms with. it takes a long time to build that capacity. we need to eliminate nuclear waste from underground. that takes time. we have to learn how to do research on the human genome. if you start creating that capacity and you turn around and destroy it and then he come back the next year and try to create a governmentbe that invest poorly and you will be can she bidding to economic -- >> all right. mark is, i've elected you the next question. he has worked at omb. he has worked at epa. most recently he was with the senate budget committee. the agenciesee as

flexibility and managing towards the sequester? reprogramming our transfer authority? what are the flexibilities and means of getting that sequester? the agency oron activity that you are working on . people put these white disc on their cars. i noticed recently a lot of cars have this -- wag more and bark left. if you need a bumper sticker for sequestration, it is the opposite of that. .ark more and wag less a lot of agencies are barking. they do not have the flexibility that they want to transfer reprogram. i go back to what was being talked about. if you were told that a year

from now you had to cut your -- from 2% to 10%, you start planning for that. agencies did not do that. -- it was notbo easy. you had the executive branch agencies that started thinking early about this. for the vast majority of agencies, that was not the case. they started thinking about this late. they had difficulty. it takes time to reprogram our transfer funds. availables may not be until too late. whiche some agencies thought about this very late.

i came up with for low plans. what sort of interruptions will happen? you could argue they were the least responsible. they were almost rewarded more than anyone. it is something worth considering the next time you think about sequestration. mind, i really think omb should have played a much stronger role and getting agencies to think early about planning for this. i know that was difficult from a political standpoint. you have the president arguing they should not happen at all.

then to have your budget agency trying to get agencies to plan for something and the president is our condition not happen seems to be consistent. this from an operating .overnment standpoint you have had an interesting career. you have worked in the house and the defense committee appropriations. you have been in the senate appropriations committee and the defense area. you have spent time at omb. on thee back as a senior budget side for national security. flip-flopped between -- >> that was put nicely. [laughter]

looking at the defense department, secretary hagel is asking for 20% haircut in the top tier at the pentagon. they are forecasting risk. for us about what you see the defense department strategy? how are they handling these? asking. you for i'm glad this is on the record so we do not have to take out batteries of our cell phones. thank you, general alexander. to understand how the pentagon deals with fiscal uncertainty and the sequester and cr, like other agencies, the they have things that they will protect. the three biggest things the pentagon will protect our military pay and benefits.

it maintains them around of the volunteer force. it is exempt from sequester. to president will continue make that decision because he has no choice really. second, the deploying and the deployed or since -- portions. , the onesombat now that are getting ready to go, funds will go to them. they will be protected. there are some things in the defense department without risk calculation is too hard to make. like the nuclear force. special operations. intelligence activities. policy driven things. having a carrier. happensr what throughout this run of fiscal uncertainty, those things will still be protect did.

-- proetected. the very all part of the budget is not the operational side, but the investment side. that is where it will get us in the long run. here is what they do. first of all, the pentagon has a bit more financial flexibility. it is more capital intensive. last year's bequest or -- sequester, the department of billion laying around. probably laying around for a good reason. they did not spend it yet. what that allow the pentagon to do was print checked -- was to

protect the program. financial funds and also supplementals. people understand this. i have been told, i do not know for certain, that congress will move money out of the base budget and into the supplemental to relieve pressure on the base budget. is a relief belt. it will continue to be that into both bottom falls out. 60% came out of the omn accounts.

think of your household budget. every threegrass weeks instead of every two weeks. do the plumbing yourselves. out.ad of hiring it services need to be cut out. communications and i.t. cut back on the lower priority or chairman programs. programs.ment they go after the young and the sick. lastly, the most politically is structural cuts. bases.like closing

they will do it in the most horrendous way. create cost increase to maintain the level of readiness of those troops. those are the pernicious effects. short-term solutions to deal with it. over the long-term, what happens is that flexibility goes away. the ability to make choices and protect those forces become harder. you will get readiness that would decrease. i bathtub affect, which means the readiness would be lower. so, you get what happened to the army at the start of the iraq war. the army went into war.

they realize they were short some 54,000 trucks. approved to have massive, massive increases in procurement. it used to be a too many dollar fine. it was nothing to buy humvees. radios, and so on and so forth. radios, ok, humvees, ultimately, what that translates into is people's well being. the military. that is what we are looking for. in the near-term, the defense minify -- can minimize some of the effects of sequestration. williams, you are representing the domestic side.

>> guns and butter. >> guns and butter. fy 2015 budgets have a cut. aj'stools did you use in hhs when you were there. you are a budget officer for years. administratione where you were deputy administrator. you ran the recovery act for the --retary on cell recently until recently. does hhs deal with -- as the

largest nondefense agency -- with programs like head start. >> we are not just the largest nondefense agency, we are the largest agency in the federal government. we are a big part of the budget pie. to answer your question, it depends on what's omf be is omb issted in -- what interested in. by 10%, thatto cut is $85 billion. for 2013he sequester for the whole federal government. that is the department's budget. it is 90% mandatory.

10% discretionary. loom larged medicaid in our budget. if you want to cut out of the total budget, our mandatory , although there is a lot of money, you can change that and reduce the cost of those programs. in the short-term,, you will not get much savings. is $20 billion of mandatory savings over 10 years. get six or $7o billion in the first year. to save $85 billion in the first that omb isss is not asking for that. sequester and other approaches

indicate 10% of our discretionary budget. that is a relatively small amount of money. billion -- 8s a billion. you are in a more manageable area. some of the tools the department , therehave to do that are various pots of money around that could be used or eliminated. you can shift costs. the fda is funded by user fees from you -- from drug companies. you could increase those fees. or, you can go after food companies. one of the cost of regulating cost.educes the federal

you could reduce costs. we have programs aimed at integrity. we are trying to make sure that our mandatory programs do not waste money. they produce lower-cost. that is another area. you can reduce programs. , are programst that are actually proposed for, not a limitation, but reduction. like the other tools job insurance program. it has performance bonuses built into the legislation. rescinding some of those bonuses, depending on the ground rules.

, a lotcounted those model ofn the business the agency. faa, you do not have a lot of choices. you spend money 12 of the year. this. not affected by or,of our budget is exempt the amount of or, sequestration is limited. budget is fully exposed to sequester. it does not loom as large, and hhs's case.- in

>> agencies have become accustomed to the fact of the cr. you have to be careful of doing what you are good at. wife that youur can empty the dishwasher well with no problem, you may be asked to do it again and again. crs.u see any relief from ? -- will going to be any this be a perpetual problem? norm.has become the it used to be able -- it used to be difficult to manage. you did not know if you're going to have a cr. it has become the norm.

if you are running an agency budget, that is what you have in october. that maya flipside benefit agencies. along with that appropriations comes report language, which you are expected to follow. on, some of the reporting language goes to the wayside. you do not have to follow it. it gives you more freedom, not less freedom. you can spend the money that you are receiving in a continuing resolution. it may benefit agencies. there is a power shift. shedw some offices that crocodile tears for the passage of acr. -- a cr.

as -- me ask my question .rom my role of aga states are worried about medicaid. medicaid is exempt from sequester. with respect to the grant programs, the states are used to it. this is not new. the fact that the federal government does not know how much they're going to get in the states do not know how much they're going to get. there are some years that are better will stop some years are worse. to adjust have grown to this. i want to say something here that most of the conversation on this panel and the other panel are concentrated on. congressman mentioned the budget act of 1974. the one thing he thought was good was the creation of the congressional budget office.

it is important discussion that we're having now. that got the united states off of one year budgeting. budgetudget was for the year only. the omb documents would have the current year and the past year and nothing beyond that. act started a provision that was not paid attention to and did not go into effect right away. eventually, five years. 10, 20, andng about 25 years. oecd,e at the imf and the i'm promoting this. i think this is good. some of the things that we are for 2014.out may be

now, we have the ability to look at what was said in the first panel. what areh programs are looming for our fiscal unsustainability. maybe we should look at a bargain that trades off reductions in healthcare costs the currentief on numbers. one of the things i look for in that law was that it allowed us to have an idea. >> i like to say that if congress on understood -- understood what happened inside of agencies when they were put on continuing resolutions, they

would feel much greater pressure to act expeditiously and in a timely way. in some cases, it depends on the program. you have an agency involved with procurement and they do not know how much they are going to get, through the cycle that you should go through procurement that ifes the taxpayer the value congress does not pass funding and the agency does not know what the budget is going to be until march or april of the fiscal year, that means the procurement process that should take 12 months to get all of the and what kind specifications you should have, advertising the federal agency,

dated out in a competitive , that, and award the bid is the way the process should bit -- should work. these truncated procurement processes. the government does not know what they are buying and have not been able to explore what the best options are. you have a waste of money. back to wheret the government puts together the budget and let's agencies know what it is year to year. give them a full year to do that work. something as an appropriator. we need to be willing to believe that we are seeing a paradigm shift in congress.

it is because of what the chairman said. there's a systemic change occurring in the body impolitic politic.dy of doing sequesters. i agree with scott's assessment. they would think twice about it. then, they would do the continuing resolution. then, they would do the sequester. the last thing a good appropriations staffer wants to do is to propose an across-the- board cut. that is an abdication of responsibility. it frustrates constitutional imperatives of setting priorities by the congress. ofrobbed the congress

its intentd exposing for house funds would be spent. that is what's happening. maybe, we need to think about how we do that in a situation normal, as opposed to a situation abnormal. congress needs to get more creative about how it registers. needs to be more explicit about or come up with different processes to establish priorities. we did this during the clinton administration. supplemental as opposed to the shell game that we do now. worked the us. i do not see the healthy alternatives to the current

situation. does overlay the budget process and other legislation. there are a number of reasons, that the chairman talked about. thatocial setting, i think both in the house and senate, there is a 50-50 split. the next election could be the year that they become the majority. it results in two things. the minority doesn't want to compromise. is tryingthe majority to protect vulnerable members. frustrates the mind wordy from bringing up amendments that are difficult to vote on. this happens in the budget process.

any amendment to be brought up when the budget process is all the floor. problem involving the commity of of the -- resolved, this will continue. >> we need amazing choices about there.ing cases out senator conrad was very eloquent about those choices. difficult.learly that is why you get a sequester. you cut things and you do not see results very much. people talk about the result but you do not see them. budget,ook at the total defense,cial security,

that is two thirds of the federal budget. the rest is a variety of things. those things account for a bulk of what we do. what do we want to do with healthcare in the future? a lot people will be retiring in a few years. low income populations. the cityfolk. what do you want to do for retirement for the workforce? social security is exempt from sequester. maybe that is a priority. defense. what will we do with defense? was 25 or 26% of the budget when i started. it is now 18%. was 12% of the budget and

-- it is 2425% of the budget 24-25% of the budget. it is a growing part of the healthcare isybe a value. it is not just a numbers game. society want to do with the resources available. -- available? this is a good value for the society. >> what happens next? where we go from here? what do you think congress doesn't the next round that they face -- dollars with the next round that they are about to

with the next round that they are about to face? >> they have a difficult decision. if you look at the wall street saw an poll, you explosion of anger towards the congress. ratings of the republican majority in the house in particular. said, do you think the republicans are being too inflexible? 56% said yes. republicans, a third said they were too flexible. you have a speaker who is dealing with a difficult and diverse my geordie -- majority of the party. the base is thinking that he has

.one too far he needs to do and stick by it. there is a sentiment in the public that he has been too strict. i think he would cut a deal if he could. i am less optimistic than senator conrad or others that he will find a solution. >> the governors are meeting in milwaukee. i will tell you what i will tell them. notnext fiscal cliff, i do use that lightly, has four components. doc fix,limit, the the extension of expiring tax provisions. is -- coat all cola

lesce. economy is that the continues to grow better now. november, it could be an important date. it could be thanksgiving eve. r is inevitable. could you go through thanksgiving? -- could it go through thanksgiving? 15 days after congress adjourned, they have to sequester. if you take the levels that the house has, 15 days after congress adjourned, the omb has

to sequester. cr and took last year's level and just continued it, omb would have to sequester. i refer to my friends from the hill, congress does not have to adjourned until december of this year. that is a technical point. the point i'm making is, what i see is something in mid-november being pressured because of the debt limit and the cr. fixill have to do the doc sooner or later. provisions that are important. the state postures but, those states that do not have income taxes rely on sales

taxes. things are forcing a deal. if you are asking me what kind of deal that is, i haven't any idea at all. it will come around mid- november. >> there will be a deal. i grew up in minnesota. of chairmanptimism conrad. it will be and other budget control act type of deal. deals that were budget earthquakes every several years. from 1998ad surpluses through 2001. we are overdue for the big one.

it will not happen any time soon. the bca was a tremor. i will mince my geologic metaphors, is a glacier that will move slowly across the ground with constant friction. it will be uncomfortable for a lot of people. it will have to be. there will have to be a deal reached. there will be a deal reached. it'll be difficult thing, canada. we will not have a grand bargain. i do not think we'll have a grand bargain during this presidency. >> i agree with that. for years we have operated on the idea that if you push it to the limit, there'll be a deal stop if you push the defense bill right up to the july 4 recess, will get it done. man, the deals that we are coming up with these days when we get pushed to the limit, you know, such a deal.

we have sequesters. excellent. we have crs. at some point, we will get a deal will stop but, the deals are not that great anymore. when do we get to a point when the deals are actually great. know --that i don't scotty came up to me and said you had to come up with $40, i'd say you had to talk to someone else about that one. seriously, we have to do it. where you have to begin that -- where do you begin that conversation question mark -- conversation? modeled.will be muddled.d --

everyone can say that we got a deal because we had to. bca.st like the questions take some in the audience. see one hand appear. the microphone is coming around. identify yourself. >> i am with a firm. this is for anyone. it sounds like, basins in the last dancers, most of you -- based on the last answers, most of you think that the budget control act will continue. the affects of sequester forin, what does that imply -- what does that imply for the economic effects of fiscal

policy. -- policy? bill pointed out $90 billion of difference. could you split the difference and find 45? pay for it somehow? as scott was saying, one of the things that was done was taking a look at longer-term things or something like that. 45 billion?nd quite possibly. particularly, given the long- term nature. i do not see them rectifying the caps for 2015- 2021. something to get through the current fiscal year situation.

i doubt they will find something for the entire. i do not think they will live with a zero. inld they find that november? >> it is important to point out the house bill is not the cap. the two cats are security and nonsecurity. the overall cap. >> the question on fiscal policy, i think, a lot of people get this wrapped up together. a deficit offrom seven percent of gdp to four percent of gdp. that is a three percent drop.

that is the equivalent of taking out a half a trillion from the economy. that makes the struggle of getting up to growth harder. the 45 billion that is being talked about is in the wrong direction. that is not what you want to be doing when you're struggling to get over one percent growth. it is very small. -- it is a big thing not a big thing. we do not have the fix that we had this year. we have to get by with fewer fbi and fewer warnings -- wardens. collecting revenues that we expect them to collect, given the number of people who were working. it is not the macro impact as much is is is the micro impact on the ability of government to

provide. , it has anld insidious macro effect outside of the beltway. 45 billion is chump change. the insidious nature of this uncertainty is contracting offices of the pentagon. industry will layoff 100,000 people in the last two years. that is probably appropriate, by the way, my wife didn't hear that, but it is appropriate. that has some level of economic impact. the reason they're laying things -- laying people off is because of furloughs and reductions in force. their delay in the contracts.

it now takes year to write a contract. the industry will not pay. people stand around for a year. small example. it has a long-term interesting ripple effect in the economy. that has a real fiscal impact, in my view. it is how it affects the that thenf the agency translates into how it affects the behavior of those supporting activities. >> there is a short-term impact to government spending. , there'sok at the cbo a long-term impact. that is a drag on the economy. the cbo points that out as well. you can say that this is going to have a short-term impact that will be detrimental. we spent 800 billion on stimulus a few years ago. that is now putting a drag on the economy.

we got the stimulative effect out of it. there is a balance. that is what most will say. that is important to keep in mind. if you keep thinking short-term, you forget about the drag on the economy later on. >> is not exactly a drag. there is growth in the economy. not enough, but some. to some extent, that is dim as effect, it is not so much a's drag on the economy. >> the cbo scored the stimulus bill. it was a net minus. changing theou are spending. you cannot create. you are changing the timing of when the growth is happening. it is important to keep that in mind. there's a balance there. that.ant to add to it gets back to a point that was made earlier.

the federal government does things that no one else can do. of the policy done by the federal government, this will sound preachy, most everything the government does has an effect on our society. tax policy is social policy. it is. decisions that we make about discretionary funding reflects the values of the federal government. less so than it used to be. the values of our society. we want to discretionary tax policy that says we are going to x to the detriment of y. that is having a gets lost in the accounting of the numbers. something that gets lost in the accounting of the numbers. we lost that sense, i think,

that what we are doing here with the budget is a blueprint for policy. the blueprint has become the focus instead of the policy. that is something we should take away from this discussion. >> these things come in cycles. people look at the long-term and need to think about things that are difficult to do. at the end of the clinton , we had budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. no one was talking about budget and problems than. -- then. that surplus disappeared over the last decade.

are focused on deficits as the biggest problem the world. the economy is growing again. more revenue will come. five or 10 years from now, with molding through, the country might end up doing just fine. you have to be can't -- you have to be careful. >> i don't think so. we cannot grow our way out. the cbo long-term productions have real growth at 2.5%. could we have higher than that? sure. enough to a limited deficits? no. health. health. health. the health expenditures are 18%. the next highest country is --ow to 12% -- a low 12%

below if you look at projections for the united states, they are scheduled to grow. that is not surprising. we are adding people because of the affordable care act. most of all, the population is aging. expenditures suggest that we will go to well over 90% in the next 10 years -- 19% in the next 10 years. one thing that scott said is that revenues of other countries are different. you do not see lower growth rates. those countries with higher revenues, one of them is sweden.

sweden has a higher revenue base and they had a higher growth rate. they capped spending. not just discretionary spending. the cap health spending. disability spending. we may be heading in that direction. gdp.ey capped it at 48% of >> they capped it and they hold it. and they tax. say, we have talked about the growth of health care and that something has to be done. in the last year, something has been done. what we do not know is, what will the affordable care act do? be effect be on overall expenditures for health care over the next five or 10 years. we are entering a whole new

world. it is not impossible to conceive of a world that changes the dynamic of these cost curves five or 10 years from now. you have to think about and deal with these uncertainties as we going to the future. >> i think that is right. there is a possibility. we have seen evidence of a slowdown in healthcare costs. for the first time, we're going to a recovery was very flat health care. it is more than healthcare. it is retirement, generally. it is the whole retirement. real per capita spending has increased by 25%. all that increase is social security, medicare, medicaid. those three programs account for

100%. are below where we were at the end of the reagan administration. the difference is, going forward, we are adding half a million elderly to those programs each year for the last 25 years. we are now adding a million and a half. huge.allenge is simply,e we face, very are we going to pay for those retirement programs? i think we are. raise the going to taxes to pay for them? the taxes are four or five percent of gdp. we will be one of the lowest taxed country in the world. we can maintain the standard of life that we have or we can

ignore either of those choices and go after tiny programs to ask like we're doing to me about the deficit will stop in fact, we are eating our seed corn. not allowing ourselves to be prosperous in the future. >> i think you got the final word. paul, do you want to come up here. >> we have had an interesting morning dealing with these issues that do not get aired. sometimes, i think that when the american people think of government, they think of a big vending machine. is managers you see furiously trying to keep it together. there are cuts and furloughs. we've also heard the notion that managers can do a lot.

members of congress can do a lot to keep us from going over the cliff. as former governor thompson might say, this is no way to run a railroad. there are a lot of issues that we care about, as a society. that is what this panel has revealed. andnt to thank bill jonathan for doing an excellent job moderating. i wanted thing grant at the bipartisan policy center. i wanted think thank george mason for helping us to put on this event. and i want to thank you all. >> on the next washington journal, will be joined by steve

scalise.ee -- steve: of the national whistleblowers center will of the the decision court. will also talk to michael hirsch america's tech companies created the surveillance state. washington journal is live every day. >> the senate foreign relations committee considered several ambassador nominations. this part of the hearing is about two-and-a-half hours. >> we are moving to the nomination hearing. recess, weach the

have a plethora of well- qualified nominees for considerations. we welcome them to the senate. as well as their family members. recognize that there is an obligation taken on by ambassadors. as an obligation by family. we understand that sacrifices involved. we appreciate it. we appreciate all of our nominees in their families that are willing to serve our country. can be long and fraught with the lay, as you all know. i would urge my colleagues to submit any additional questions for our nominees by this evening. our nominees to return their answers as quickly as possible. to thank the senators who will take the gavels for panel three and four.

i want to thank staff are working this process of diligently with me. reviewing files, meeting with nominees, making time. our efforts are critical. the first ofoduce two panels, we turn to a senator for his comments. -- >> iould like to see like to see this process continue. been to zero to two days since we have had any nomination. i look forward to your testimony. i want to thank the members of this committee for participating in this. hopefully, we can move many of these out i we's and. anend.eek's play aector general's

crucial role in finding ways. in an government. in finding wasteful funds in government. ig forurrently the federal housing agency. he served as the assistant united states attorney. qualified to be the state department inspector general. >> this is a critically important post. i'm glad the state department has made this nomination. the safety of our foreign anvice officers has become even greater focus in recent

events. i'm sure you will ensure the integrity of what we are doing. i thank you for being here. i think it is incredibly important to have a functioning and strong inspector general. i look forward to your testimony. i'll ask you you to synthesize your statement in five minutes. your full statement will be entered into the record without objection. , thank you menendez for this opportunity to appear before you today. i'm honored to be the nominee for inspector general of the department of state. this is the second time a president obama has nominated me. i was confirmed in 2010 to serve as the first inspector general of the finance agency. responsible for

overseeing the federal home loan home loan banks. mary matalin and robert king are here supporting me. most of my professional life has and devoted to public service. joined theating, i district attorney's office. federal prosecutor and over the next 16 years, i worked with various components of the department of justice. of 2010, i have served as the inspector general fa.fh i believe that my spirits is make me well served to be the inspector general the department of state.

notably, while the department of justice, i served for four years as the executive director for the national preterm and fraud task force. i supervise an investigation of forecution of individuals corruption related to the war and the reconstruction effort in afghanistan. i worked with the inspector general for iraq and the reconstruction. plus the office of the inspector general. my service as the fhfa inspector general demonstrates that i have the skill to manage and agency with significant responsibilities and resources. appreciation deep

for the role of inspector general and agency and the role of vigorous and independent oversight. i was responsible for building an organization from the ground up. i hired 140 professionals. i also had responsibilities for fannie mae and freddie mac. billion ofed $187 taxpayer money. from the outset of the office formation, i managed my results and collaborated with inspector resourcesto leverage and best practices. my team has published 50 reports on critical topics. we have made recommendations that will reduce $2 billion. in manyparticipated

criminal actions involving mortgage fraud that have led to indictments. ofhas been an honor to serve -- as the inspector general. i will ring the same leadership to the state department from a strategic and leadership perspective. i understand the responsibilities of the position are great. if confirmed, i will ensure that the office of inspector general is an independent and objective organization that provides oversight and transparency to the programs and operations of the department of state. i'll maintain close relationships in congress and this committee. i will develop effective working relationships with management. i look forward to answering your questions.

thank you. >> thank you very much for your testimony. , this start off with position has been vacant since 2008. the largest unfilled position of the inspector general's. experience, your aat affect do you think that vacancy of this length has created at the department of state? how will you assure the independence, if confirmed. -- if confirmed? >> i recognize there has been a vacancy. faceare the challenges i is that i do not know the impact that has had on mthe oig.

sleeves andup my find out if there are gaps in oversight or problems in the office. i will look for solutions. in terms of independence, i have been very independent. i would employ the same strategy at the department of state of inspector general. that means telling the truth, even if it is unpleasant and promoting. parents he -- tranparency. protecting whistleblowers. ensuring high standards for audits. you aree ask you, if confirmed, what is your thinking on how you will audit. -- audit?

producing some understanding, about themendations operations of the department within the context of the purview of your work. how we work with other officials to ensure that the recommendations made by you are you worked -- how will with other officials to ensure that the recommendations made by you are implemented? >> there is a process that all inspector general's employ. you inform congress about the recommendations. you follow-up on the recommendations. you do additional reports to ensure compliance. if i'm from with implementation, i will take up the secretary -- if i have a problem with implementation, i will take it up with the secretary. commitmentet your

that you will bring to our attention those issues? >> you have my commitment. i'm close with the banking committee and other committees of jurisdiction. i routinely debrief both the senate and the house on events at the oig. >> under the foreign affairs act, each state department is supposed to be inspected by the oig at least once every five years. there are bureaus that have been not inspected. can be donebelieve to remedy the situation?

>> i'm aware the statutory requirement. one of my first tasks will be to look at the research and determine where the priorities are. working withed in this committee, if confirmed. i want to understand the committee perspective. >> ok. senator.rn to >> i know you are aware of the challenges. i guess you understand that there may be personnel changes. i do not know anything specifically, in that regard. are you willing to do whatever is necessary to bring the state department into a procreate accounting standards --

appropriate accounting standards? i believe that standards are important for the office of inspector general. if my first tasks, confirmed, is to take a look at gao issues. it is concerning to me. i have not formed a can pollution -- a conclusion yet. >> one of the issues that has occurred within the office of inspector general is turnover. there is a lack of what you might call institutional knowledge. people do not have the background to delve into issues in an appropriate way. >> that is something i would address. >> i guess there's an opportunity to make better use of contracting in the state department. that has been pointed out.

that will be a responsibility of yours. if confirmed, you will do everything you can to demonstrate better ways of contracting and getting value for taxpayers. >> i certainly will. to, i same thing relating , iss, you have a background guess, that equips you to help with all acquisition activity. i'm sure you'll use that background to help the state department in all of its acquisition activities. >> my background has prepared me for that. >> i appreciate your willingness to serve in this way. i look for to your confirmation. >> thank you. corker, i appreciate your attention to the appointment of the inspector general of the department of

state. it has been a very long time. we are pleased that you have been willing to take on this task. obviously, the challenge is tremendous. americanas the , youyer's eyes and ears provide important oversight that is a benefit to congress and the administration. itself. the agency thank you for your willingness to serve. thatf the challenges government is facing at the federal level is sequestration. automatic cuts that have gone into effect. i wonder if you can talk about how this factors into the job, if you are confirmed, and how it will affect your priorities?

>> it will affect the role of the oig. i'm not there yet. i do not know the resources look i would explore the various management challenges and how resources are allocated to them. at the end of the day, it is about higher taxation and strategic planning -- it is about prioritization and strategic landing. that is what i do. we have a rigorous, strategic running process. do our best to maximize the leverage of our resources without spending too much money. and you talk about who was involved in the planning process?